Nurse practitioner screening for childhood adversity among adult primary care patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Researchers have demonstrated an association between experiencing childhood abuse and multiple chronic health conditions in adulthood, yet this evidence has not been routinely translated to practice. The purpose of this research study was to examine nurse practitioner (NP) practices, skills, attitudes, and perceived barriers associated with screening adult patients for childhood abuse to determine the extent to which evidence of the association between childhood abuse and negative health outcomes has been translated to NP practice. METHODS: A mixed-method approach with web-based questionnaires and online focus groups was used to examine NP screening for histories of childhood abuse. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 188 complete NP surveys were analyzed along with data from focus groups with 12 NPs. One third of the NPs regularly screened for childhood abuse and believed screening was their responsibility. Six barriers, including insufficient time and lack of confidence when inquiring about abuse, were significantly associated with NP screening practices. The focus group participants discussed how and when one should ask about childhood abuse, and the need for education about screening. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Time constraints and NPs' lack of confidence in their ability to screen for histories of childhood abuse must be addressed to encourage routine screening in primary care practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".