MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910248860 · doi:10.1542/peds.2018-1403

Discussion of Potentially Sensitive Topics With Young People

2019· article· en· W2910248860 on OpenAlexaff
John Santelli, Jonathan D. Klein, Xiaoyu Song, Jennifer Heitel, Stephanie A. Grilo, Mengru Wang, Hanying Yan, Kristen Kaseeska, Julie Gorzkowski, Madeline Schneider, Alexandra E. Dereix, Marina Catallozzi

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChecklistFamily medicineConfidentialityHealth careFormative assessmentService providerOddsService (business)Logistic regressionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To identify modifiable factors that facilitate discussion of potentially sensitive topics between health care providers and young people at preventive service visits after Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act implementation. METHODS: We used data from a national internet survey of adolescents and young adults (13-26 years old) in the United States. Questionnaire construction was guided by formative research and Fisher's Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills model. Those who had seen a regular health care provider in the past 2 years were asked about 11 specific topics recommended by national medical guidelines. Four multivariable regression models were used to identify independent predictors of discussions of (1) tobacco use, (2) drug and/or alcohol use, (3) sexually transmitted infections or HIV, and (4) the number of topics discussed. RESULTS: Fewer than half of young people reported having discussed 10 of 11 topics at their last visit. Predictors were similar across all 4 models. Factors independently associated with health discussions included the following: ever talked with a provider about confidentiality (4/4 models; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.85-2.00), ever had private time with a provider (1 model; aOR = 1.50), use of health checklist and/or screening questionnaire at last visit (4 models; aOR = 1.78-1.96), and time spent with provider during last visit (4 models). Number of years that young men had seen their regular provider was significant in 1 model. Other independent factors were positive youth attitudes about discussing specific topics (3/3 models) and youth involvement in specific health risk behaviors (3/3 models). CONCLUSIONS: Discussions about potentially sensitive topics between health care providers and young people are associated with modifiable factors of health care delivery, particularly provider explanations of confidentiality, use of screening and/or trigger questionnaires, and amount of time spent with their provider.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207