Screening Adolescents for Alcohol Use: Tracking Practice Trends of Massachusetts Pediatricians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Substance use screening is a recommended component of routine healthcare for adolescents. A 2008 survey of Massachusetts primary care physicians found high rates of screening, but low rates of validated tool use, leading to the concern that physicians may be missing substance use-related problems and disorders. In an effort to improve practice, a cross-disciplinary group developed and distributed an adolescent screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment toolkit in 2009. A new survey of Massachusetts primary care physicians was conducted in 2014; this report describes its findings, and compares them to those from 2008. METHODS: A survey was mailed to a randomly selected sample of Massachusetts primary care physicians listed in the state Board of Registration in Medicine database. Item response frequencies were computed. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used to compare 2008 and 2014 responses, while controlling for any demographic differences between samples. RESULTS: Pediatrician respondents in 2014 (analysis N = 130) reported a high rate of annually screening patients for alcohol use (96.2%), but only 56.2% reported using a validated screening tool. Rates of screening and validated tool use were higher in 2014 than 2008. Insufficient knowledge as a reported barrier to screening decreased from 2008 to 2014. However, lack of time or staff resources remained key perceived barriers to screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that adolescent alcohol use screening practices among Massachusetts pediatricians have improved in recent years, during a time of national and statewide efforts to educate physicians. However, opportunities for practice improvement remain.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".