Use of a staff administered structured questionnaire to identify relevant life-style issues and social-health determinants in a sexual and reproductive health service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a staff-administered questionnaire to identify life-style issues and social-health determinants. DESIGN: Structured questionnaire administered by a health professional after dealing with the primary reason for attendance. SETTING: Community-based UK sexual and reproductive health service. POPULATION: First 1329 selected clinic patients comprising 1018 women attending Family Planning and 161 women plus 150 men attending Genitourinary Medicine; 47% were aged under 25. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification of relevant health-risk taking, life-style issues, and unaddressed health concerns. Participants were offered appropriate support, information and referrals. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-four (23%) of the Family Planning women and 83 (52%) of the Genitourinary Medicine women [plus 103 (69%) of the men] reported two or more sexual partners in the last year. A third of participants denied regular condom use. Six per cent of women and 5% of men questioned had previously been forced to have sex. Eleven per cent of men admitted to having paid for sex and 9% of women disclosed physical assault (one-quarter in the home). Eight per cent of women and 7% of men had unresolved issues relating to previous miscarriage, termination, or stillbirth. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to identify relevant life-style issues and social determinants of health during routine practice using a staff-administered questionnaire. The resulting information may not otherwise have been disclosed and may impact significantly on health and care delivery. The information collected provides opportunities for both individuals and service planners to address wider health needs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".