Challenges of Providing Confidential Care to Adolescents in Urban Primary Care: Clinician Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinician time alone with an adolescent has a major impact on disclosure of risk behavior. This study sought to describe primary care clinicians' patterns of delivering time alone, decision making about introducing time alone to adolescents and their parents, and experiences delivering confidential services. METHODS: We undertook qualitative interviews with 18 primary care clinicians in urban health centers staffed by specialists in pediatrics, family medicine, and adolescent medicine. RESULTS: The annual preventive care visit is the primary context for provision of time alone with adolescents; clinicians consider the parent-child dynamic and the nature of the chief complaint for including time alone during visits for other than preventive care. Time constraints are a major barrier to offering time alone more frequently. Clinicians perceive that parental discomfort with time alone is rare. Many clinicians wrestle with internal conflict about providing confidential services to adolescents with serious health threats and regard their role as facilitating adolescent-parent communication. Health systems factors can interfere with delivery of confidential services, such as inconsistent procedures for determining whether unaccompanied youth would be seen. CONCLUSION: Despite competing time demands, clinicians report commitment to offering time alone during preventive care visits and infrequently offer it at other times. Experienced clinicians can gain skills in the art of managing complex relationships between adolescents and their parents. Office systems should be developed that enhance the consistency of delivery of confidential services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".