Ineffectiveness of sun awareness posters in dermatology clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although sun awareness posters have been used in doctors' offices and clinics for decades to promote sun protective behaviour, there is no evidence of their usefulness. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether sun awareness posters lead to inquiry of skin cancer and sun protection measures. METHOD: Patients considered at risk for skin cancer seen at a dermatology clinic were randomly asked to complete a questionnaire designed to assess the effectiveness of three different sun awareness posters placed in patient rooms. The posters were selected on the basis of their catchy slogan and eye-appealing images, and included those featuring parental interest, sex appeal and informative advice. RESULTS: Only half of the patients noticed the posters (50.6%). The poster with sex appeal garnered the most attention (67.8%), followed by the informative poster (49.2%) and the parental interest poster (35.8%) (P < 0.001). Although patients who noticed the sun awareness poster inquired about cutaneous cancers and sun protection practices twice as often as those who did not notice the poster, only one-tenth of such inquiries were attributed to the poster ( approximately 5% of the target population). As reported in the questionnaire, the posters themselves were less effective than the advice of physicians in influencing patient attitudes towards sun protection measures. CONCLUSION: Organizations that produce and disseminate posters should consider beyond focus groups when they design their posters and should consider field testing their products to ensure that they are reaching the targeted audience and are having the expected beneficial effect, otherwise their posters are simply decorative.
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 | 0.018 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".