The impact of intolerance of uncertainty on anxiety after receiving an informational intervention about HPV: A randomised controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the impact of intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and an informational intervention about human papillomavirus (HPV) infection on perceived uncertainty about one's HPV testing status (referred to as 'HPV uncertainty') and anxiety. IU, HPV uncertainty and other pre-intervention measures were assessed through mailed questionnaires. Participants were then randomly assigned to receive either a long (N = 125) or short (N = 124) HPV-specific information pamphlet or a long (N = 131) or short (N = 115) control pamphlet about cancer prevention. Participants subsequently completed measures of HPV uncertainty and anxiety. Providing a lot of HPV information increased HPV uncertainty more than providing little HPV information and cancer prevention information. Among women who received the long HPV or the short control pamphlet, those with higher IU were more anxious than those with lower IU. Women with higher IU are more likely to seek HPV information, but they may also be at risk for experiencing higher anxiety because factual uncertainties about HPV cannot be resolved through the provision of more information.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".