Comparing Knowledge, Health Beliefs, and Self-Efficacy Toward Hepatitis B Prevention Among University Students With Different Hepatitis B Virus Infectious Statuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatitis B carriers are at risk of spreading the virus and developing cirrhosis and hepatoma. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in knowledge, health beliefs, and self-efficacy related to hepatitis B prevention among university students. Using a comparative descriptive design, the study population, defined to include second- through fourth-year students, enrolled at a university in southern Taiwan. Students were stratified by hepatitis B virus infectious status and then selected at random for participation. Survey data were obtained via an online SPSS data entry system. The response rate was 39.9%. A total of 109, 113, and 106 students were assigned, based on their status, to the immune group (having hepatitis B antibody), susceptible group (having neither hepatitis B antigen nor antibody), and carrier group (having hepatitis B antigen without antibody), respectively. Most participants in this study attached a social stigma to hepatitis B carriers. Approximately 24% of carriers and 19% of susceptible students were unaware of their hepatitis B infectious status. Compared with the other two groups, carriers were less likely to change their lifestyle to promote health. Although more than two thirds of susceptible students agreed that their current behavior is risky, only half were worried about becoming hepatitis B carriers. The findings revealed the pressing need for hepatitis B prevention education among university students. School nurses should work closely with school administrators to establish a health promotion program to increase carriers' self-efficacy to promote their personal health, curtail risky behavior among susceptible students, and remove the stigma attached to hepatitis B carriers among university students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".