An Electronic Teen Questionnaire, the eTeenQ, for Risk Behavior Screening During Adolescent Well Visits in an Integrated Health System: Development and Pilot Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Screening for risk behaviors is a routine and essential component of adolescent preventive health visits. Early identification of risks can inform targeted counseling and care. If stored in discrete fields in the electronic health record (EHR), adolescent screening data can also be used to understand risk behaviors across a clinic or health system or to support quality improvement projects. Objective: Goals of this pilot study were to adapt and implement an existing paper adolescent risk behavior screening tool for use as an electronic data capture tool (the eTeenQ), to evaluate acceptance of the eTeenQ, and to describe the prevalence of the selected risk behaviors reported through the eTeenQ. Methods: The multidisciplinary project team applied an iterative process to develop the 29-item eTeenQ. Two unique data entry forms were created with attention to (1) user interface and user experience, (2) the need to maintain patient privacy, and (3) the potential to transmit and store data for future use in clinical care and research. Three primary care clinics within a large health system piloted the eTeenQ from August 17, 2020, to August 27, 2021. During preventive health visits for adolescents aged 12 to 18 years, the eTeenQ was completed on tablets and responses were converted to a provider display for teens and providers to review together. Responses to the eTeenQ were stored in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University) database, and for patients who agreed, responses were transferred to an EHR flowsheet. Responses to selected eTeenQ questions are reported for those consenting to research. At the conclusion of the pilot, the study team conducted semistructured interviews with providers and staff regarding their experience using the eTeenQ. Results: Among 2816 adolescents with well visits, 2098 (74.5%) completed the eTeenQ. Of these, 1811 (86.3%) agreed to store responses in the EHR. Of 1632 adolescents (77.8% of those completing the eTeenQ) who consented for research and remained eligible, 1472 (90.2%) reported having an adult they can really talk to and 1510 (92.5%) reported feeling safe in their community, yet 401 (24.6%) reported someone they lived with had a gun and 172 (10.5%) reported having had a stressful or scary event that still bothered them. In addition, 157 (9.6%) adolescents reported they were or wondered if they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, or other, and 43 (2.6%) reported they were or wondered if they were transgender or gender diverse. Of 11 staff and 7 providers completing interviews, all felt that the eTeenQ improved confidentiality and willingness among adolescents to answer sensitive questions. All 7 providers preferred the eTeenQ over the paper screening tool. Conclusions: Electronic capture of adolescent risk behaviors is feasible in a busy clinic setting and well accepted among staff and clinicians. Most adolescents agreed for their responses to risk behavior screening to be stored in the EHR.
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 | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".