American and German students' knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors with respect to over-the-counter pain relievers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the knowledge base and perceptions involved in the decision to buy and use over-the-counter pain relievers (OTCPRs) by taking into account the environment in which these decisions are made. The authors expected that the differences in access and marketing would affect knowledge and decision making related to OTCPRs in the United States and Germany. DESIGN: A survey was given to 108 undergraduate university students in the United States and Germany (58 and 50 participants, respectively). RESULTS: The authors found that significantly more Americans than Germans take OTCPRs and that they also take significantly more OTCPRs. Americans exhibited less knowledge about side effects than their German counterparts. When asked when they consulted package labels, Americans reported they were more likely to do so before buying a product, whereas Germans reported consulting labels before taking OTCPRs for the first time. Package labels affected more Americans' decisions to purchase OTCPRs; Americans were also less likely to consult a doctor when feeling pain but more likely to take OTCPRs. Finally, Americans viewed OTCPRs as riskier after their status changed from prescription only to over the counter, whereas Germans believed they posed less risk. CONCLUSION: This study analyzed health-related behavior by looking at how environmental factors shape decision processes related to over-the-counter drug use. The results indicate that looking at environmental factors does help to explain differences in knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors among German and American 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".