About The Study: The 21st Century Cures Act mandated that patients have immediate access to clinical notes and other health information (i.e., open notes). At a large, integrated health system, open notes engagement increased rapidly following implementation and plateaued at 55% within 2 months, with substantial sociodemographic disparities in engagement. These disparities may be attributed to the digital divide. Language may be another barrier, as notes are not routinely translated despite multilingual portal interfaces.

The Iranian government is failing to tackle devastating environmental catastrophes affecting the country, and persecuting campaigners trying to raise awareness of the impact on communities, a new book says.

A new statistical tool could help researchers and practitioners determine when personalized treatments, educational programs, or recommendations are truly worth the extra cost and complexity, according to a new study. The findings offer a rigorous tool to identify when tailoring interventions is likely to outperform more conventional one-size-fits-all approaches. Personalized interventions are increasingly used in fields such as medicine, education, marketing, economics, and computer science because individuals often respond differently to the same treatment or support. However, personalized interventions are more expensive, often require more data, and can be more difficult to implement than universal interventions. There are very few tools to evaluate and identify scenarios when the added cost and complexity of personalization are justified by meaningful improvements in outcomes. To address this, Zhaoqi Li and Emma Brunskill developed a statistical hypothesis test – the K-fold Personalization Test (KPT) – that analyzes existing datasets to evaluate whether a personalized intervention policy is expected to outperform the best universal intervention. Unlike previous methods, the test accommodates multiple interventions, many individual characteristics, and flexible machine learning models while maintaining rigorous statistical guarantees, including control of false-positive (Type I) error. Across four datasets spanning job training, depression treatment, education, and marketing systems, the authors found that the KPT approach consistently demonstrated broad applicability and outperformed previous statistical methods for evaluating personalization. Li and Brunskill note, however, that the test evaluates personalization only within a user-specified class of decision policies and does not identify the optimal personalized policy itself. Yet even with these limitations, the KPT provides a rigorous and broadly applicable framework for helping researchers and practitioners determine when personalization is likely to deliver meaningful benefits.