Community Health Worker Hepatitis B Education for Cambodian American Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cambodian Americans have high rates of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and liver cancer. There is very limited information about the utility of community health worker (CHW) approaches to cancer education for Asian American men. We have previously reported our positive findings from a trial of CHW education about HBV for Cambodian Americans who had never been tested for HBV. This report describes similarities and differences between the outcomes of our CHW HBV educational intervention among Cambodian American men and women. METHODS: The study group for this analysis included 87 individuals (39 men and 48 women) who were randomized to the experimental (HBV education) arm of our trial, participated in the CHW educational intervention, and provided follow-up data six months post-intervention. We examined HBV testing rates at follow-up, changes in HBV-related knowledge between baseline and follow-up, and barriers to HBV testing (that were reported to CHWs) by gender. RESULTS: At follow-up, 15% of men and 31% of women reported they had received a HBV test (p=0.09). HBV-related knowledge levels increased significantly among both men and women. With respect to HBV testing barriers, women were more likely than men to cite knowledge deficits, and men were more likely than women to cite logistic issues. DISCUSSION: Our study findings indicate that CHW interventions can positively impact knowledge among Cambodian American men, as well as women. They also suggest CHW interventions may be less effective in promoting the use of preventive procedures by Cambodian American men than women. Future CHW research initiatives should consider contextual factors that may differ by gender and, therefore, potentially influence the relative effectiveness of CHW interventions for men versus women.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".