Preferences of Adolescents and Young Adults With Epilepsy and Caregivers on Reproductive Health Counseling by Neurologists: A Concept Mapping Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain reproductive health counseling priorities of adolescent and young adult women with epilepsy (AWWE) and caregivers during neurology visits. METHODS: We recruited AWWE aged 14-26 years and caregivers from institutional neurology clinics, a research registry, and epilepsy listservs for a Concept Mapping study. Participants (1) brainstormed topics important for counseling of AWWE about reproductive health, (2) sorted topics into categories and rated their importance (on a five-point Likert scale) for AWWE aged 14-17 and 18-26 years, and (3) met to interpret study findings. We included a small subset of the participants in the interpretation meeting to allow meaningful discussion. RESULTS: Thirty-four AWWE and 20 caregivers generated 37 topics, which were sorted/rated by 35 AWWE and 23 caregivers; seven AWWE and nine caregivers attended the interpretation meeting. Consensus categories included "Hormonal Changes," "Contraception," "Sex & Epilepsy," "Preparing for Pregnancy," "Pregnancy with Epilepsy," and "Parenthood & Epilepsy." For ages 14-17 years, categories rated at least 4.00 for importance included "Hormonal Changes," "Contraception," "Sex and Epilepsy," and "Preparing for Pregnancy." For ages 18-26 years, all categories were rated at least 4.00. In the interpretation meeting, participants proposed a previsit checklist tool to indicate topics of interest. CONCLUSIONS: AWWE want counseling about reproductive health from neurologists that is tailored by age and more comprehensive than current American Academy of Neurology recommendations. Use of a previsit checklist tool may help identify individual patient and family counseling priorities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".