An Electronic Teen Questionnaire, the eTeenQ, for Risk Behavior Screening During Adolescent Well Visits in an Integrated Health System: Development and Pilot Implementation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Screening for risk behaviors is a routine and essential component of adolescent preventive health visits. Early identification of risks can inform targeted counseling and care. If stored in discrete fields in the electronic health record (EHR), adolescent screening data can also be used to understand risk behaviors across a clinic or health system or to support quality improvement projects. Objective: Goals of this pilot study were to adapt and implement an existing paper adolescent risk behavior screening tool for use as an electronic data capture tool (the eTeenQ), to evaluate acceptance of the eTeenQ, and to describe the prevalence of the selected risk behaviors reported through the eTeenQ. Methods: The multidisciplinary project team applied an iterative process to develop the 29-item eTeenQ. Two unique data entry forms were created with attention to (1) user interface and user experience, (2) the need to maintain patient privacy, and (3) the potential to transmit and store data for future use in clinical care and research. Three primary care clinics within a large health system piloted the eTeenQ from August 17, 2020, to August 27, 2021. During preventive health visits for adolescents aged 12 to 18 years, the eTeenQ was completed on tablets and responses were converted to a provider display for teens and providers to review together. Responses to the eTeenQ were stored in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University) database, and for patients who agreed, responses were transferred to an EHR flowsheet. Responses to selected eTeenQ questions are reported for those consenting to research. At the conclusion of the pilot, the study team conducted semistructured interviews with providers and staff regarding their experience using the eTeenQ. Results: Among 2816 adolescents with well visits, 2098 (74.5%) completed the eTeenQ. Of these, 1811 (86.3%) agreed to store responses in the EHR. Of 1632 adolescents (77.8% of those completing the eTeenQ) who consented for research and remained eligible, 1472 (90.2%) reported having an adult they can really talk to and 1510 (92.5%) reported feeling safe in their community, yet 401 (24.6%) reported someone they lived with had a gun and 172 (10.5%) reported having had a stressful or scary event that still bothered them. In addition, 157 (9.6%) adolescents reported they were or wondered if they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, or other, and 43 (2.6%) reported they were or wondered if they were transgender or gender diverse. Of 11 staff and 7 providers completing interviews, all felt that the eTeenQ improved confidentiality and willingness among adolescents to answer sensitive questions. All 7 providers preferred the eTeenQ over the paper screening tool. Conclusions: Electronic capture of adolescent risk behaviors is feasible in a busy clinic setting and well accepted among staff and clinicians. Most adolescents agreed for their responses to risk behavior screening to be stored in the EHR.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».