Designing Health Recommender Systems to Promote Health Equity: A Socioecological Perspective (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNSTRUCTURED Health recommender systems (HRS) have the capability to improve human-centered care and prevention by personalizing content, such as health interventions or health information. HRS, an emerging and developing field, can play a unique role in the digital health field as they can offer relevant recommendations, not only based on what users themselves prefer and may be receptive to, but also using data about wider spheres of influence over human behavior, including peers, families, communities, and societies. We identify and discuss how HRS could play a unique role in decreasing health inequities. We use the socioecological model, which provides representations of how multiple, nested levels of influence (eg, community, institutional, and policy factors) interact to shape individual health. This perspective helps illustrate how HRS could address not just individual health factors but also the structural barriers—such as access to health care, social support, and access to healthy food—that shape health outcomes at various levels. Based on this analysis, we then discuss the challenges and future research priorities. We find that despite the potential for targeting more complex systemic challenges to obtaining good health, current HRS are still focused on individual health behaviors, often do not integrate the lived experiences of users in the design, and have had limited reach and effectiveness for individuals from low socioeconomic status and racial or ethnic minoritized backgrounds. In this viewpoint, we argue that a new design paradigm is necessary in which HRS focus on incorporating structural barriers to good health in addition to user preferences. HRS should be designed with an emphasis on health systems, which also includes incorporating decolonial perspectives of well-being that challenge prevailing medical models. Furthermore, potential lies in evaluating the health equity effects of HRS and leveraging collected data to influence policy. With changes in practices and with an intentional equity focus, HRS could play a crucial role in health promotion and decreasing health inequities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".