A survey-based study of adolescents and their healthcare providers in a tertiary pediatric hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Adolescents admitted to hospital face challenges beyond their immediate medical condition(s), and are often looked after by healthcare providers who may not fully appreciate this population’s unique health needs. This single-center study explores the experiences of adolescents and their healthcare providers in a general pediatric inpatient setting, with hopes of bridging some of these care gaps. Methods: We designed a cross-sectional survey-based study of two participant groups: (1) Adolescent patients (aged 10-19) admitted to general medical wards at a tertiary pediatric hospital and (2) Pediatric healthcare providers representing multiple disciplines. Results: 25 adolescents completed the survey (mean age 14.6; range 11-17). Most adolescents reported consistently being treated respectfully (88%) and taken seriously (92%) by their care providers. Several identified structure and routine, a break from daily stressors, and quality time with loved ones as positive aspects to hospitalization. Cited areas for improvement included use of correct gender pronouns, having more quiet and privacy, having similar-age roommates, and age-appropriate leisure activities. Healthcare providers (n=40) representing a range of disciplines participated. Most (82%) described caring for adolescents as enjoyable and many (87%) reported that they forged therapeutic connections with their patients. Providers noted several areas of discomfort, particularly with history-taking and/or counseling around gender identity, sexuality, body image, substance use, and suicidality. Identified care gaps included inadequate training/education, suboptimal ward environments, and lack of community resources. Conclusions: This study identified unique strengths and opportunities for improvement in adolescent inpatient care. Hospital environments should recognize adolescent patients’ needs for privacy and offer age-appropriate leisure activities. Healthcare providers would benefit from youth-centred education for improved communication around gender, sexuality, and mental health.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".