Adolescents on an inpatient unit and their healthcare providers: what’s working and what’s not
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Adolescents admitted to hospital can face unique medical and psychosocial challenges, and may be treated by healthcare providers who do not recognize or adequately address these needs. Our goal was to better understand the experiences of both patients and providers at a local level. 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: A total of 65 individuals participated: 25 adolescents (mean age 14.6; range 11-17) and 40 multidisciplinary healthcare providers. Most adolescents reported being treated respectfully (88 %) and taken seriously (92 %) by their providers. Several identified structure and routine, a break from daily stressors, and quality time with loved ones as positive aspects to hospitalization, while the use of correct gender pronouns, privacy, and age-appropriate leisure activities were cited areas for improvement. The majority of providers reported enjoying caring for adolescents (82 %) and forging therapeutic connections with them (87 %). Several areas of discomfort were noted, including gender and sexuality, substance use, and suicidality. Identified care gaps included inadequate training/education, suboptimal ward environments, and lack of community resources. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals should recognize adolescent patients' needs for privacy, youth-centered communication, and developmentally-appropriate spaces. Pediatric healthcare professionals generally enjoy providing care to adolescents in the in-patient setting, however, often have insufficient training in addressing adolescent-specific health and psychosocial issues.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".