Physician Adherence to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Sexually Active Adolescents in the Pediatric Emergency Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is limited literature about physicians' adherence to 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines specific to specimen collection testing methods in adolescent females in the emergency setting is limited. The objectives are to (1) determine physician adherence to CDC guidelines for specimen collection/testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea, (2) determine physician characteristics associated with guideline adherence, and (3) describe physicians' knowledge of expedited partner therapy (EPT) laws. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, anonymous, Internet-based survey of physician members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section of Emergency Medicine. Questions addressed practice patterns and knowledge through clinical scenarios of adolescent girls. Descriptive statistics are used to report frequency. Fisher exact and χ analyses are used to compare physician subgroups: gender, years in practice, practice setting, and geographical region. RESULTS: Overall, 257 physicians responded and 231 were analyzed; 62.4% females; 46.0% in practice for ≤ 7 years; 86.2% in academic medicine. Specimen collection/testing in an asymptomatic patient were consistent with guidelines for 85.6% of respondents, but decreased to 37.4% for a symptomatic patient. Guideline adherence was not different between physician subgroups. Only 30.4% of physicians reported state EPT law knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence with the CDC guidelines for chlamydia/gonorrhea specimen collection/testing for adolescents in the emergency setting is inadequate, and EPT knowledge is poor. With increased emergency department use by adolescents, it is critical that physicians know and implement the current recommendations to improve adolescent health outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".