Survey of Ontario health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of alcohol-related harms: key findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study is to explore the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs among health and health care professionals in Ontario of the risks associated with excessive alcohol use to strengthen attention on alcohol as a key modifiable risk factor for cancer and other health harms.Methods: This study used an online survey to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the level of awareness of excessive alcohol use as a risk factor for injuries, cancer and chronic diseases among health and health care professionals? (2) How do you address alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm reduction in practice? and (3) What opportunities and barriers exist for health care professionals in addressing alcohol-related harm in practice?Results: Five hundred and eight-one participants responded to the online survey. The majority of respondents were Dietitians, Public Health Nurses, Nurses, Health Promotion Consultants and Health Educators. Results include participant’s attitudes, opinions and knowledge on the identified research questions.Discussion & Conclusion: Results from this survey will be disseminated to promote health and health care professionals awareness surrounding issues of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm, with emphasis on physicians and other Allied Health Professionals (including Registered Dietitians and Public Health Nurses). Several knowledge exchange areas are identified.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".