Knowledge and practice of harm-reduction behaviours for alcohol and other illicit substance use in adolescents with type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) about their knowledge and application of harm-reduction recommendations when they engage in alcohol and other illicit substance use. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey and chart review of adolescents with T1DM aged 13 to 18 years. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety patients were approached and 164 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 15.6 years (standard deviation [SD]=1.5). Fifty-one per cent were male. Of those who reported consuming alcohol, 95% knew that they should have a friend or parent check their blood glucose in the middle of the night after drinking but only 62% reported actually doing this in practice. Similarly, 98% reported knowing that they should wear a medic alert identification but only 79% reported actually doing this. Of those who reported consuming cannabis, 14% reported forgetting to check blood glucose and 14% reported forgetting insulin when using cannabis. From the chart review, a significantly lower proportion of adolescents reported substance use during their clinic visits (alcohol 26%, tobacco 19%, illicit substance 25%) compared to the self report in the survey (alcohol 55%, tobacco 30%, illicit substance 32%). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents' knowledge of harm-reduction practices for the use of alcohol and other illicit substances is not always put to practice. Motivating adolescents to use their knowledge in practice is an important area to improve in diabetes self-management. Those who reported engaging in substance use in the survey had not always reported use during interactions with health care providers. This emphasizes the need for unbiased, universal education of all adolescents in the clinic.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".