Considerations of Privacy and Confidentiality in Developing a Clinical Support Tool for Adolescent Tobacco Prevention: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic clinical support tools show promise for facilitating tobacco screening and counseling in adolescent well-care. However, the application of support tools in pediatric settings has not been thoroughly studied. Successfully implementing support tools in local settings requires an understanding of barriers and facilitators from the perspective of both patients and providers. OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to present the findings of a qualitative study conducted to inform the development and implementation of a support tool for adolescent tobacco screening and counseling in 3 pediatric clinics in North Florida. The primary objective of the study was to test and collect information needed to refine a tablet-based support tool with input from patients and providers in the study clinics. METHODS: A tablet prototype was designed to collect information from adolescents on tobacco susceptibility and use before their well-care visit and to present tobacco prevention videos based on their responses. Information collected from adolescents by the support tool would be available to providers during the visit to facilitate and streamline tobacco use assessment and counseling components of well-care. Focus groups with providers and staff from 3 pediatric clinics (n=24) identified barriers and facilitators to implementation of the support tool. In-depth interviews with racially and ethnically diverse adolescent patients who screened as susceptible to tobacco use (n=16) focused on acceptability and usability of the tool. All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for team-based coding using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Privacy and confidentiality of information was a salient theme. Both groups expressed concerns that the tool's audio and visual components would impede privacy and that parents may read their child's responses or exert control over the process. Nearly all adolescents stated they would be comfortable with the option to complete the tool at home via a Web portal. Most adolescents stated they would feel comfortable discussing tobacco with their doctor. Adolescent interviews elicited 3 emergent themes that added context to perspectives on confidentiality and had practical implications for implementation: (1) purity: an expressed lack of concern for confidentiality among adolescents with no reported history of tobacco use; (2) steadfast honesty: a commitment to being honest with parents and providers about tobacco use, regardless of the situation; and (3) indifference: a perceived lack of relevance of confidentiality, based on the premise that others will "find out anyway" if adolescents are using tobacco. CONCLUSIONS: This study informed several modifications to the intervention to address confidentiality and introduce efficiency to well-care visits. The support tool was integrated into the electronic health record system used by the study clinics and modified to offer videos to all adolescents regardless of their tobacco use or susceptibility. Future studies will further test the acceptability of the intervention in 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".