Increasing public awareness about hepatitis C: development and validation of the brief hepatitis C knowledge scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is silently becoming a major public health problem. Currently, no validated HCV knowledge measures exist. This study aimed to develop and validate a brief measure to assess general knowledge about HCV risk factors, modes of transmissions, and treatment options. A total of 406 individuals participated in this cross-sectional study. All participants completed the proposed 19-item Brief HCV Knowledge Scale. Participants were: HCV mono-infected patients (n = 83), HCV-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infected patients (n = 24), HIV mono-infected patients (n = 128) community healthcare workers (n = 89), and college students (n = 82). Two-week test-retest data were collected for the college student sample. Psychometric evaluation of the proposed scale demonstrated high levels of validity (content and construct validity) and reliability (internal consistency and retest stability). Factor analysis indicated a one-factor solution, which accounted for 49% of the variance. HCV knowledge was positively correlated with length of time since HCV diagnosis (r = 0.29, p < 0.05). HCV treatment-experienced patients obtained significantly higher HCV knowledge scores (82% correct) than HCV treatment-naïve patients (72% correct) (p < 0.05). HCV knowledge in College students (43% correct) and HIV patients (54% correct) was significantly lower than in HCV patients (77% correct) and community healthcare workers (80% correct) (p < 0.001). Community workers' HCV knowledge was positively correlated with years of HCV work experience (r = 0.30, p < 0.01). This self-administered Brief HCV Knowledge scale has high levels of validity and reliability across patient, healthcare provider and college student populations. It has valuable applications as a clinical teaching tool with patients and healthcare providers and could be used as an outcome indicator in novel HCV educational intervention studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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".