Adolescents talk about insufficient prevention through their general practitioner: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescence is a period of empowerment and vulnerability that requires the early identification of risky behaviours to prevent them. Several prevention areas need to be addressed, including sexual health, mental health, substance use and addiction, diet, physical activity, orthopaedic disorders, vaccinations, screen use, and social relationships. Prevention plays an important role in primary care all over the world. Consultation between an adolescent and their GP can be complex. While there are professional recommendations, they rarely address all prevention areas. AIM: To understand adolescents' experiences of preventive health care during consultations with GPs. DESIGN & SETTING: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with adolescents in France, aged between 11 years and 24 years. METHOD: Individual interviews took place with 12 participants. Analysis was conducted based on grounded theory and triangulated for the identification of conceptualising categories. RESULTS: Twelve interviews led to the identification of the following three conceptualising categories: (1) prevention in adolescents is primary prevention and is multifaceted; (2) limited preventive involvement by the attending physician: adolescents seek information from other sources with varying influence on their behaviour; and (3) adolescents tend to justify GPs' limited preventive engagement. CONCLUSION: Adolescents trust their GP. Despite the use of different prevention sources, not all recommended topics are discussed with adolescents. Leveraging the experiences of adolescents, we can confirm that GPs have to be more involved in preventive care during consultations with adolescents. These consultations are complex, and it is necessary to offer support tools for GPs and other primary healthcare professionals, based on the needs of adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".