MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412521082 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(25)00144-6

Outreach health-care services for people experiencing exclusion in high-income countries

2025· review· en· W4412521082 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Johnson, Sophie Nadia Gaber, Roberto Langella, Eleanor Turner-Moss, Jeremy Weleff, Thomas D. Brothers, Aaron Koay, Andrew Hayward, Serena Luchenski, Patrick Perri, Al Story, Binta Sultan, Rikke Siersbaek

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachPovertyHealth careMedicineHealth servicesFamily medicineNursingGerontologyEconomic growthEnvironmental healthPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inclusion health aims to prevent and address health and social inequalities for people experiencing exclusion, such as people experiencing homelessness, people who have a history of contact with the criminal justice system, people who use drugs, sex workers, vulnerable migrants, victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, and Romany Gypsy, Roma, and Travellers communities. These populations have poor health outcomes and disproportionate health inequities, partly resulting from inadequate health-care access. Outreach services can improve health-care access, but there is little evidence of how outreach operates successfully. We conducted a realist review of multicomponent outreach health-care services to understand the circumstances under which outreach works for people experiencing exclusion and why. Key components of effective outreach include person-centred services and appointments, staff expertise, high-quality communication, and close partnership with people experiencing exclusion and relevant organisations. Service users are likely to develop trust and further engage through positive experiences and regular interaction with the same staff.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207