Collaboration between researchers, university students, and healthcare professionals to improve older Vietnamese immigrants’ health literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of the cognitive examination from the Vietnamese Aging and Care Survey (VACS) showed the high prevalence of cognitive impairment among older Vietnamese immigrants in Houston, Texas. We proposed the Community-Engaged Dementia Education Program (CEDEP), evaluated the Vietnamese community’s dementia literacy, and developed a linguistically and culturally tailored dementia one-pager. This study was the next step in implementing the one-pager and disseminating the importance of dementia literacy in collaboration between researchers, university students, and Vietnamese healthcare professionals. We trained bilingual Vietnamese pre-health students and offered free cognitive tests in Vietnamese at various health fairs to introduce the notion of cognitive health. Twenty-eight students assessed older Vietnamese cognition (N = 247) using the Vietnamese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. The results showed an average of 22.4, indicating mild cognitive impairment. However, the community overwhelmingly responded positively to the assessment because memory issues were their major concern. The intergenerational exchange – older Vietnamese had their memory checked while the younger generation of students experienced real-world clinical assessments – facilitated their interaction, and benefited both parties. Improving the community’s awareness and knowledge takes time and requires long-term commitment. Leveraging the dedication of Vietnamese healthcare professionals, this collaborative work needs to continue.
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 | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".