Should we adjust health education methodology to low-educated employees needs? Findings from Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The presented study explored health beliefs and experiences as well as health education needs of low-educated employees (LEEs) (incomplete primary, primary, lower secondary and basic vocational education) in comparison to those with higher education (secondary and tertiary education) in four European countries: Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. The main aim was to identify a specificity of low-educated employees (LEEs) by capturing their opinions, experiences, attitudes and needs concerning health education. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 1691 individuals with the status of an employee (approximately 400 respondents in each of 4 countries participating in the project). The respondents were aged 25-54 (both the control group and the target group consisted in 1/3 of the following age groups: 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54). The respondents were interviewed during the years 2009 and 2010 with a structured questionnaire concerning their health, health behaviours as well as educational needs concerning health education. RESULTS: The study revealed substantial differences in the attitudes of people from this group concerning methodology of health education. LEEs prefer more competitions and campaigns and less written educational materials in comparison to those with higher education. Additionally, they more often perceive a fee, longer time, necessity to take part in a knowledge test and a concern that their health will be checked as factors that can discourage them from taking part in a health training. On the other hand, LEEs can by encouraged to take part in such a training by a media broadcast concerning the event, snacks or lottery during the training, or financial incentives. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study proved the need for specific health education guidelines to conduct health education for low-educated employees. These guidelines should take in account the sources of health education preferred by LEEs as well as the factors that can encourage/discourage their participation in trainings concerning health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".