Thanks for asking: Adolescent attitudes and preferences regarding the use of chaperones during physical examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no uniformity as to how and when chaperones should be used for general and intimate (genitalia and/or breasts) physical examinations of adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To explore adolescents' attitudes and preferences regarding the use of medical chaperones during physical examinations. METHODS: The present analysis was a cross-sectional descriptive study performed as part of a quality improvement project in the Adolescent Medicine Clinics at The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Ontario) between January 1 and April 30, 2011. Adolescents 13 to 18 years of age completed an anonymous 10-item, self-administered questionnaire regarding their thoughts on chaperones during physical examinations. Demographic and descriptive data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 127 adolescents participated in the present study. The mean (± SD) age was 16.3±1.5 years and the majority (93.7%) were female. More than one-half (61%) of female adolescents had previous experience with an intimate examination; however, a chaperone was present only 36% of the time. Seventy percent of female adolescents wanted the choice of a chaperone for a general examination compared with 61% for an intimate examination. Among female adolescents with past chaperone experience, 78% wanted the choice of a chaperone for subsequent intimate examinations, compared with 55% among those with no previous chaperone experience. Only 21% believed they would ask for a chaperone if one were not offered. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was variation in adolescents' attitudes and preferences regarding the use of chaperones, many females indicated a desire to discuss the option of a chaperone for all types of examinations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".