Impact of Attending a Healthcare Conference in Toronto During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Crisis: Survey of Delegates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact on delegates of attending the Canadian Pain Society's annual meeting in Toronto during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) crisis in May 2003. METHODS: A prospective survey design was used. Surveys were sent to all delegates (n=432) who attended the conference, and 294 delegates responded (68% response rate). The survey was developed to determine the level of concern about travelling to Toronto; the adequacy of screening measures; the level of stress about attending; and the occupational consequences of attending. RESULTS: Fifty per cent of the participants were not concerned about travelling to Toronto, while the other 50% expressed some concern ranging from mild to serious. Concerns included being exposed to SARS and fear of transmitting it to others upon return. Reasons for attending the conference despite concern included a desire for continuing education, decrease in the number of reported SARS cases, and perceived minimal risk. Almost one-half (n=140) felt the screening measures at the conference were adequate, while 4% felt they were inadequate and 9% somewhat adequate. Delegates (n=99) suggested that temperature-taking (32.2%), improved screening vigilance (14.4%), SARS screening forms checked daily (9.1%), strictly controlled entry (8.1%) and adopting hospital screening procedures (7.1%) should have been instituted. CONCLUSION: Health care professionals planning conferences in this era of new respiratory diseases can benefit from understanding the responses of delegates who attended conferences during outbreaks. Clear communication about the potential risks and benefits, as well as instituting full screening precautions, will help to allay concerns.
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".