The attitudes of Australian gynaecologists to HPV vaccination: An ASCCP survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines now approved for women up to 45 years of age, gynaecologists in Australia will be approached increasingly for advice on whether to have the HPV vaccine. AIM: We seek to establish the attitudes of gynaecologists to HPV vaccination when advising women in various age groups. METHODS: Fellows, members and trainees of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists were approached in early 2009 to complete an Australian Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology survey, which they could return by post or internet on-line. There were 836 (49.0%) responses, with 35.6% of responders using 'Tuna' on-line. RESULTS: 836 RANZCOG fellows, members and trainees responded to the survey. The gender of responders are 261 (43%) females and 470 (56%) males. Of the responders, 391 (46.8%) usually initiated discussion regarding the role of HPV vaccination with their patients. More than 93% encourage when recommending the HPV vaccines for female responders aged 12-26 years. This proportion decreased to 66% for women aged 27-45 years, with 15% strongly encouraging vaccination for this age group. The attitudes to HPV vaccination for the different age groups of females were similar for trainees, fellows and members, as well as for gender and age groups of the responders. However, those with lower level of knowledge are less likely to encourage HPV vaccination in all vaccination age groups and the association is statistically significant after adjusting for role, gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: The results show a strong support from gynaecologists in Australia for HPV vaccination.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it