Vulnerable Populations: Comparison of Characteristics of Adolescent Inpatients with Substance Use Disorder and a History of Child Maltreatment to Inpatients without a History of Child Maltreatment: A Retrospective Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescent inpatients with substance use disorder (SUD) and a history of child maltreatment (CM) present a vulnerable population at considerable risk of poor health and social outcomes. The aims of this study were to explore the proportion of adolescent inpatients with SUD and a history of CM and to compare these patients to inpatients with SUD and no history of CM. Methods: In this retrospective chart review, we explored adolescent patients who were consecutively admitted to a regional child and adolescent inpatient unit for psychiatric care and met DSM (5th ed) criteria for SUD. A standardized form was created and used to extract clinical information and psychosocial histories. Results: From 1 September 2019 to 28 February 2020, 126 adolescents were admitted with SUD, and for 80 (63.3%) patients, a history of CM was recorded in the medical charts. Patients with a history of CM were significantly more likely to be female (p = 0.02), have longer lengths of stay (p = 0.04), to be readmitted (p = 0.03), be diagnosed with trauma/stress-related (p = 0.04) and eating disorders (p = 0.05), to have a parent with a mental illness (p = 0.01), experienced physical (p < 0.01) and sexual (p < 0.01) assaults and homelessness (p < 0.01), and to engage in self-harming behaviors (p < 0.01) than inpatients with SUD but no history of CM. Conclusions: Almost two-thirds of adolescent inpatients with an SUD reported a history of CM. Addressing their specific clinical and psychosocial vulnerabilities through comprehensive treatment and discharge plans may reduce readmission and improve quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".