The Acceptability of Incorporating a Youth Smoking Prevention Intervention in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pediatric emergency department (PED) is under-utilized as a setting in which to provide tobacco prevention interventions for at-risk children. We sought to determine the acceptability and feasibility of incorporating a brief, parental tobacco prevention intervention to 520 parents during the PED visit. Mean age (SD) of parents and children was 38.6 (7.1) and 11.5 (1.1), respectively; 47% of children were female; 45% were African American; 36% of parents had an annual income less than $25,000; 28.8% of parents were current smokers. Over 90% of parents said the intervention provided "useful" and "easy to understand" information and 97% of practitioners said it did not "interfere with clinical care." Given the high prevalence of parental smoking in the PED, there is a high likelihood that their children will initiate smoking in the future. Thus, the use of the PED as a venue to providing tobacco prevention interventions warrants further evaluation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".