Discussing Race With Families With Young Children: Pediatric Clinician Attitudes and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe clinician attitudes and practices regarding discussions about race-related topics with families of children aged 0 to 5 years. METHODS: The authors distributed a survey to the Reach Out and Read (ROR) medical provider network to assess clinicians' prior education, attitudes and clinical practice discussing the impact of racism on child health, racial identity formation, and development of ethnic-racial pride. The authors report item response frequencies with a sub-analysis of respondent race, ethnicity, level of training, and practice region and setting. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-two surveys with 80% or more completion rate were analyzed. Over 90% of respondents agreed that racism affects child health. Although most agreed that clinicians have a role in discussing the impact of racism on a child's health, racial identity formation, and development of ethnic-racial pride with families, the majority did not regularly do so. Barriers included lack of time and education, clinician discomfort, and fear of damaging the therapeutic relationship. Many agreed that receiving education about these topics was very important, but fewer than 25% had prior education or knew of resources. Nearly 90% agreed that books and ROR can support these discussions; 79% were interested in additional ROR training. CONCLUSION: Although surveyed clinicians agree that they have a role in discussing race-related topics with families with infants and young children, they do not feel equipped to have these discussions. Pediatricians are interested in incorporating culturally diverse, developmentally appropriate books, and ROR to discuss issues related to race.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".