Reasons why Young Adults do or do not Seek help for Alcohol Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate reasons for seeking or not seeking help for alcohol problems in young adults and to report outcomes in those with problems who thought they did not need help. METHODS: A total of 1003 members of a birth cohort were interviewed at age 25 about the period since the previous interview at age 21. DSM-IV diagnoses were made from reports of alcohol problems over the previous 4 years. Treatment contact for drinking or problems associated with drinking and reasons for seeking or not seeking help were reported. Alcohol consumption was reported for the year before interview. RESULTS: Alcohol-specific treatment contact was uncommon: 26 of 351 with any alcohol problems made contact (7%). Even in the subgroup with alcohol dependence, only 24% made contact (13/55). Most (19/26) sought treatment because they felt they needed it. Of those with problems who did not seek help or advice, nearly all (96%) thought they did not need help. Approximately one-quarter thought the problem would get better by itself (29%) or did not think to seek help (25%). No more than 5% reported any other attitudinal or practical reason. Outcomes in the year before interview for those who thought they did not need help showed that 75% continued to experience problems and almost all drank well above guidelines at least on their heaviest drinking occasion. Only 43% had attempted to quit or cut down on their drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol-related problems were experienced by approximately one-third of these young adults but treatment contact for these problems was uncommon. Belief in ability to handle problems oneself was often not matched by action.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".