An urban survey of paediatric environmental health concerns: Perceptions of parents, guardians and health care professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a survey in Edmonton, Alberta, to gather information regarding concerns about the influence of environmental factors on children's health and to use the information to set an agenda for the resources of the Paediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit at Misericordia Hospital (Edmonton, Alberta). METHODS: Two questionnaires with 28 closed-ended questions were developed to examine parents', guardians' and health care professionals' concerns. They comprised items about six environmental factors (air, water and food quality; household supplies; radiation; and waste disposal). Health care professionals were also asked four questions about their knowledge of and their needs in Paediatric Environmental Health. Parents and guardians attending the public health centres and nurses working therein received questionnaires. Physicians were surveyed by e-mail. RESULTS: After verification, the questionnaire data from 400 parents or guardians and 152 health care professionals were used for analyses. Results from contingency table, Hotelling's T² and effect size analyses revealed similarities in the levels of concern in both groups, and the results were combined. The greatest concern of both groups was with environmental tobacco smoke, followed by pesticides in water. Concerns about six additional environmental elements were also expressed. The health care professionals showed a high level of concern about the need for resources, specific training and public education regarding paediatric environmental health. CONCLUSION: A significant level of concern was consistently found between the two groups studied, regardless of professional training. The highest level of concern was with a well-documented topic (ie, environmental tobacco smoke). Less concern associated with decreased documentation calls for increasing the knowledge of society, including health care professionals, to address the adverse effects of environmental factors on children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".