MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480140857 · doi:10.1080/03670244.2015.1049344

Application of the Health Belief Model to Teach Complementary Feeding Messages in Ethiopia

2015· article· en· W1480140857 on OpenAlexaff
Susan J. Whiting, Demmelash Mulualem, Pragya Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology of Food and Nutrition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth belief modelDiversity (politics)Behavior changeIntervention (counseling)Health educationBehavior change communicationHealthy foodPerceptionNutrition EducationRandomized controlled trialPsychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthDemographyGerontologySocial psychologyPublic healthFood scienceHealth servicesNursingBiologySociologyInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ethiopia many women do not practice appropriate complementary feeding (CF). The Health Belief Model (HBM) asserts that change in behavior is determined after consideration of severity, benefit, and barriers to change. This study examined the effectiveness of 3 months of HBM-based education compared to the traditional (didactic) method on CF practices of mothers, with no education as control, using three randomized groups. One hundred sixty-six mother-infant (6-18 months) pairs were recruited. At baseline and after intervention, knowledge, perceptions, and practices about CF and related areas were determined. It was only diet diversity that increased significantly in the HBM group (from 3.05±0.94 food groups to 3.79±0.82, p<.05) while the other two groups had no change. Improvements in food groups were most noticeable as legumes & nuts (from 35.6% use to 83.9% in HBM group). Thus, nutrition education about diet diversity improvement needs to be conducted promotes behavior change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology of Food and NutritionSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207