Health Behaviors among Adolescents and Young Adults with Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Document the frequency of substance use and oral hygiene among adolescents and young adults with moderate to complex congenital heart disease (CHD). BACKGROUND: Patients' knowledge of health behaviors, including substance use and oral hygiene, has been examined among patients with CHD, but patients' actual behavior has not been studied. Understanding patients' behavior is needed to inform interventions that enhance healthy lifestyles, and in turn encourage patients to better care for their own health. METHODS: Young adults (19 or 20 years old) and older adolescents (16-18 years old) with moderate or complex CHD (n = 328) reported their substance use (i.e., smoking, marijuana, alcohol, other illicit drugs) and oral hygiene. Rates of these health behaviors were contrasted with comparison samples of peers of the same age. RESULTS: Just over half of the young adults (54%) and over one-quarter of the adolescents (28%) reported significant substance use (i.e., smoking cigarettes on more than 2 days, using marijuana or other illicit drugs at least once, or binge drinking) during the previous 30 days. Rates of significant substance use among the patients with CHD were either comparable to, or lower than, rates in comparison samples of similar aged peers. Only about 15% of the patients with CHD had excellent oral hygiene (i.e., self-reported annual teeth cleaning by dentist, brushing and flossing daily); however, virtually all patients (>95%) brushed daily. Patients with CHD generally had comparable oral hygiene to comparison samples in previously published data. CONCLUSIONS: Many older adolescents and young adults with CHD are engaging in behaviors that may compromise their health. The impact of substance use and poor dental hygiene warrants further investigation. Nevertheless, health behaviors should be routinely discussed in this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".