Perceptions and use of sources of health knowledge by young adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding how adolescents acquire health knowledge and where they currently seek answers to health-related questions may facilitate the development of interventions that will be both engaging and effective, and may help to improve health over the short- and long-term. OBJECTIVE: The present study sought to investigate the perception and use of sources of health knowledge by young adolescents as stratified by gender. METHODS: Thirty 50-min long focus groups were conducted with 143 participants. Focus group questions were built around the following three main categories: sources of knowledge, including preferred sources, sources accessed for general health, and sources accessed for personal/sensitive health; health information and behaviour change, including characteristics of health knowledge presentation that have influenced behaviour change; and learning preferences to promote behaviour change. Content analysis of focus group transcripts was performed. RESULTS: The use of sources of health knowledge was similar between genders, with some differences noted between sources accessed for general as compared to personal health questions. As well, motivation appeared to be the primary influence of health behaviour change, with knowledge being reported as both as positive and neutral influence, most notably in the areas of diet and exercise. Lastly, adolescents reported several characteristics of health knowledge presentation that they felt would motivate positive behaviour change, including engaging and participatory activities. CONCLUSION: These results should be considered in the development of interventions to improve health-related behaviour in adolescents, although future research to quantify the use of sources of health knowledge by this population is recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".