Encounters between adolescents and general practice in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the nature of the encounters between adolescents and general practice in Australia. METHODS: Data collected by the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health programme from 1998-2004 were analysed. Data for 10-14-year-old and 15-19-year-old males and females were compared with data for 25-29-year-olds. The outcome measures included: number of encounters compared with other age groups, reasons for encounter, problems managed, treatments prescribed and referrals made for key problems and types of consultations. RESULTS: Adolescents have the lowest rate of encounter with general practice, compared with all other age groups. Respiratory, skin, musculoskeletal and unspecified (fever, injury, weakness) problems accounted for the great majority of reasons for encounter and problems managed. Management of mental health problems, preventive health care and health education were very infrequently managed problems. Standard surgery consultations were more common among adolescents than among young adults. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents have a relatively low rate of encounter with general practice and the problems managed are primarily physical ailments. There is great scope to improve delivery of preventive health care and to increase management of mental health problems.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".