Knowledge Levels Regarding Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Among Emergency Healthcare Workers in an Endemic Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to determine knowledge levels regarding Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) among emergency healthcare workers (HCWs) in an endemic region. METHODS: A questionnaire form consisting of questions about CCHF was applied to the participants. RESULTS: The mean age was 29.6 ± 6.5 years (range 19 - 45). Fifty-four (49.5%) participants were physicians, 39 (35.8%) were nurses and 16 (14.7%) were paramedics. All of the participants were aware of CCHF, and 48 (44%) of them had previously followed CCHF patients. Rates of the use of protective equipment (masks and gloves) during interventions for patients who were admitted to the emergency service with active hemorrhage were 100% among paramedics, 76.9% among nurses and 61.1% among physicians (P = 0.003). Among 86 (78.9%) HCWs who believed that their knowledge regarding CCHF was adequate, 62 (56.9%) declared that they would prefer not to care for patients with CCHF (P = 0.608). CONCLUSIONS: The use of techniques to prevent transmission of this disease, including gloves, face masks, face visors and box coats, should be explained to emergency room HCWs, and encouragement should be provided for using these techniques.
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 | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".