Giving patients information on abnormal cytology and human papillomavirus: survey of health providers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Knowledge of the link between HPV and cervical cancer is low among women. Health providers may be required to give information and counseling on HPV. This study surveyed health providers' comfort in counseling women about HPV. METHODS: Physicians, nurses and midwives attending a lecture on HPV completed a questionnaire (before the lecture) on their comfort level answering questions that a woman with an abnormal Pap may ask her health provider. Comfort level with knowledge was assessed on a 7-point Likert scale, with seven being very comfortable. RESULTS: Of the 96 attendees, 57.3% (55/96) were eligible and completed the questionnaire. Two-thirds of respondents were physicians (61.8%; 34/55), 38.2% were nurses or midwives (21/55). Telling a partner about HPV infection was the question about which the most respondents were very comfortable (69.1% answering 6 or 7) and chances of developing cervical cancer was the item about which the fewest respondents reported being very comfortable (36.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-half to two-thirds of health providers self-reported being very comfortable answering HPV-related questions that a woman may ask. More information is needed regarding health providers' actual knowledge of HPV and women's wishes for information.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".