The Effect of a Health Education Intervention on Jordanian Participants’ Colorectal Cancer Knowledge, Health Perceptions, and Screening Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second and third most commonly diagnosed cancer in women and men, respectively. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to test the effectiveness of a health education intervention on the current level of Jordanians' CRC knowledge, health perceptions, and screening practices. METHODS: A convenience sampling method was used to recruit a sample of 197 average-risk Jordanian adults aged 50 to 75 years. The sample was collected from outpatient departments of Jordan University and Al-Basheer Hospitals in Amman. This study used quasi-experimental design, and a rolling enrollment method was implemented to randomly assign the participants into intervention and control groups. RESULTS: Baseline results indicated that Jordanian average-risk participants were not well informed about CRC and screening recommendations. One-fourth perceived themselves to be susceptible to CRC. About one-third comprehended the seriousness of CRC, most recognized the benefits of CRC screening, and fewer than half believed there were barriers preventing them from participating in CRC screening. Four weeks after intervention implementation, there was a significantly higher level of knowledge, as well as increased susceptibility and severity perceptions, screening via fecal occult blood test, and intentions to undergo screening via colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSION: The findings support the implementation of a health education intervention as an effective way to enhance levels of knowledge and promote positive health perceptions regarding CRC and screening recommendations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study may provide Jordanian and other nurses with a theory-based educational intervention to improve the quality of nursing care and reduce costs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".