The relationship of sex and risk behaviours to students' use of school-based health centres in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Among other benefits, school-based health centres (SBHCs) are thought to provide opportunities to identify and help adolescents with risk-taking behaviours. The present study examined the use of SBHCs at three high schools in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, to determine the extent to which SBHCs reach students at risk, and whether there are sex differences with respect to this reach. METHODS: Self-administered surveys of students in grades 10 to 12 at the three high schools were carried out in May 2006. RESULTS: The response rate was 70% of registered students. Boys were more often at risk than girls due to substance use, while girls were more often at risk due to sexual activity and suicidal thoughts. More girls visited SBHC nurses than boys (49% versus 10%; P<0.001). After adjusting for age, boys who saw a SBHC nurse were significantly more likely to engage in all risk-taking behaviours than boys who did not see a nurse; girls who saw a nurse engaged in most risk-taking behaviours significantly more often than girls who did not. However, no more than 22% of students with each specific risk behaviour used SBHCs to address those risks, with the exception of girls consulting for sexual health reasons, who made up 59% of all girls in the schools who reported being sexually active. CONCLUSIONS: Boys infrequently use SBHCs, and many at-risk students of both sexes do not use SBHCs. If the full potential for these SBHCs to help students with risk behaviours is to be realized, the need to increase reach to students is clear.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".