Knowledge and practices of medical students to prevent tuberculosis transmission in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe knowledge, practices, and associated factors of medical students to prevent transmission of tuberculosis (TB) in five medical schools. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of undergraduate medical students in preclinical and in early and late clinical years. Information was obtained on sociodemographic profile, previous lectures on TB, knowledge about TB transmission, exposure to patients with active pulmonary TB, and use of respiratory protective masks. RESULTS: Among 1 094 respondents, 575 (52.6%) correctly answered that coughing, speaking, and sneezing can transmit TB. Early [adjusted odds ratio = 4.0 (3.0, 5.5)] and late [adjusted odds ratio = 4.2 (3.1, 5.8)] clinical years were associated with correct answers, but having had previous lectures on TB was not. Among those who had previous lectures on TB, the rate of correct answers increased from 42.1% to 61.6%. Among 332 medical students who reported exposure to TB patients, 194 (58.4%) had not used protective masks. More years of clinical experience was associated with the use of masks [adjusted odds ratio = 2.9 (1.4, 6.1)], while knowledge was inversely associated with the use of masks [adjusted odds ratio = 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)]. CONCLUSIONS: Many medical students are not aware of the main routes of TB infection, and lectures on TB are not sufficient to change knowledge and practices. Regardless of knowledge about TB transmission, students engage in risky behaviors: more than two-thirds do not use a protective mask when examining an active TB case. We suggest innovative, effective active learning experiences to change this scenario.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".