Correlates of hot day air-conditioning use among middle-aged and older adults with chronic heart and lung diseases: the role of health beliefs and cues to action
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
Extreme ambient heat is a serious public health threat, especially for the elderly and persons with pre-existing health conditions. Although much of the excess mortality and morbidity associated with extreme heat is preventable, the adoption of effective preventive strategies is limited. The study reported here tested the predictive power of selected components of the Health Belief Model for air-conditioning (AC) use among 238 non-institutionalized middle-aged and older adults with chronic heart failure and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease living in Montréal, Canada. Respondents were recruited through clinics (response rate 71%) and interviews were conducted in their homes or by telephone. Results showed that 73% of participants reported having a home air conditioner. The average number of hours spent per 24-hour period in air-conditioned spaces during heat waves was 14.5 hours (SD = 9.4). Exploratory structural equation modeling showed that specific beliefs about the benefits of and drawbacks to AC as well as internal cues to action were predictive of its level of use, whereas the perceived severity of the effects of heat on health was not. The findings are discussed in light of the need to adequately support effective response to extreme heat in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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