Experiences of Pediatric Emergency Physicians in Providing Alcohol-Related Care to Adolescents in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The emergency department (ED) is a key clinical care setting for identifying and managing patients with alcohol-related presentations. We explored the experiences of emergency physicians in providing alcohol-related care to adolescents. METHODS: Purposeful sampling was used to identify pediatric emergency physicians with at least 1 year of experience (n = 12) from pediatric EDs across Canada. Data were collected via telephone using a semistructured interview guide. Hermeneutic phenomenology was used to identify common and unique experiences among respondents, using Moustakas' immersion/crystallization procedures. RESULTS: Physicians expressed frustration with patient behaviors accompanying intoxication and described providing care as a struggle; developing an effective therapeutic alliance was challenging. Physicians believed intoxicated adolescent patients required more clinical time and resources than they could offer. Although physicians described the ED as unsuitable for ensuring continuity of care and addressing the broader social issues that accompany alcohol use, they did view the ED as a place to medically stabilize the patient and initiate a discussion on alcohol use and its harmful effects. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric ED physicians struggled during the caring experience and were skeptical that broader, more chronic social issues that are often associated with adolescent alcohol misuse can be effectively managed in a clinical setting where they feel primarily responsible for providing medical stabilization. Physicians did believe the ED was an appropriate place to ensure medical stability of a patient and then initiate a conversation regarding alcohol use and its harmful effects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".