Evaluation of the effectiveness of arsenic screening promotion in private wells: a quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Eastern Townships (ETR) is a region in Québec (Canada) where the soil is naturally rich in arsenic (As). About a third of the people in the ETR obtain their water from a private well. A quasi-experimental design was used to compare two campaigns designed to promote As screening in well water: a mass-media campaign (MMC) followed or not by a community-based intervention (CBI). The MMC is based on a press release issued for the ETR, along with a leaflet on As made available on the Internet, and in strategic places. The CBI, formulated according to the factors of the Precede-Proceed model, was aimed at mobilizing local authorities and small media. It targets only one municipality; the intervention community (IC). Using a separate pre-post samples design, two population-based cross-sectional (pre-CBI and post-CBI) surveys were conducted by phone at 6-month intervals, by means of random samples. The samples counted, for the IC and the ETR, respectively, 87 and 156 well owners in pre-CBI, and 106 and 190 in post-CBI. The results in post-CBI showed that the proportion of well owners who had their water test increased by four times in the IC after (16% p = 0.004). When adjusting for age and gender among all the post-CBI respondents, As screening is related with intervention status (exposed to MMC and CBI; p ≤ 0.001) and on previous microbiological water analysis behavior (p ≤ 0.05), but is not related to knowledge. This study demonstrates the superiority of a community-based campaign over a MMC when environmental health is concerned.
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 | 0.009 | 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".