Adolescent Male Receptivity of and Preferences for Sexual Health Interventions in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Male adolescents frequently present to the emergency department (ED) and many participate in behaviors increasing their risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies. Although the ED visit may represent an intervention opportunity, how best to design and deliver a sexual health intervention matching the preferences of adolescent male users is unclear. Our objective was to explore receptivity to and preferences for sexual health interventions among adolescent male ED patients. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we asked sexually active male ED patients aged 14 to 21 years about their attitudes toward ED-based sexual health interventions and preferences for intervention modalities. Participants interacted with an early prototype of a digital intervention to gather specific feedback. Enrollment continued until saturation of key themes. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded based on thematic analysis using NVivo. RESULTS: Participants (n = 42) were predominantly 18 to 21 years (63%) and Hispanic (79%). Although most (71%) had sex in the prior 3 months, 45% did not use a condom at last intercourse and 17% had impregnated a partner. Participants viewed the ED visit as unused time without distracting influences, suitable for educational sexual health interventions. They considered ED-based digital interventions a reliable and confidential source of information. Engaging interventions allowed user control and provided novel and relatable content. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent male ED patients are receptive to ED-based digital sexual health interventions. These identified preferences should be considered when designing future user-informed sexual health interventions for the ED setting.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".