How to Inform: Comparing Written and Video Education Interventions to Increase Human Papillomavirus Knowledge and Vaccination Intentions in Young Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of 2 human papillomavirus (HPV) educational interventions on increasing HPV knowledge and vaccination intentions in college students. PARTICIPANTS: Male (n = 60) and female (n = 140) undergraduates (M (age) = 20.4, SD = 2.3) recruited from a university in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, from October 2009 to March 2010. METHODS: Using theory-based interventions, participants were randomly assigned to either a written HPV pamphlet, an HPV video, or a control. HPV knowledge and vaccination intentions were assessed pre and postintervention. RESULTS: Low baseline knowledge and intentions were found across groups. Postintervention, participants in the written and video interventions had significantly higher knowledge and intentions than the control. No differences were found between written and video interventions on knowledge or intentions. CONCLUSION: This study, a first in comparing HPV educational formats, suggests that both written and video interventions are equally effective in educating about HPV and increasing young adults' vaccination intentions.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it