Associations Between Adolescent Risk Behaviors and Injury: The Modifying Role of Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents with disabilities are at risk for poor health outcomes including injury. The objective of this study was to examine if disability status modifies the association between risk behavior and injury among adolescents. METHODS: The cross-sectional Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Survey was administered to a representative sample of 7235 Canadian students (grades 6-10) in 2002. Students who reported at least 1 functional difficulty due to a health condition were classified as having a disability. Engagement in up to 6 individual risk behaviors and a summative multiple risk behavior score were considered the primary exposures. Primary outcomes included medically attended injury experienced during a 12-month period. RESULTS: Sixteen percent of students reported a disability. Almost all risk behaviors and all injury outcomes were more common among students with disabilities than in those without disabilities (eg, older age group's smoking: 17.5% vs 8.9%, p = <.01; medically attended injury: 67.4% vs 51.4%, p = <.01). Clear risk gradients were observed between engagement in multiple risk behavior and all injury outcomes. The association between multiple risk behavior and injury was accentuated by disability status among older students, particularly for students with disabilities who engaged in frequent multiple risk behavior (adjusted risk ratio 1.8, 95% CI: 1.6-1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian students with disabilities who engage in risk behaviors experience higher risks for medically attended injury than their nondisabled peers who engage in those same risk behaviors. Injury prevention programs that focus on risk-taking behavior should integrate the needs of this high-risk group of adolescents in order to prevent additional disability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".