MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

O04.5 A psychosocial evaluation of the zika virus: u.s. pregnant women’s knowledge and attitudes about prevention

2017· article· en· W2743805442 on OpenAlexaff
Susan L. Rosenthal, Lauren Dapena Fraiz, Ariel M. de Roche, Marina Catallozzi, Gilla K. Shapiro, Gregory D. Zimet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineZika virusPregnancyTransmission (telecommunications)Family medicineWorryPediatricsDemographyObstetricsPsychiatryVirusImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Zika, when transmitted during pregnancy, can be associated with significant infant morbidity. Little is known about pregnant women’s knowledge and attitudes regarding the Zika virus. Methods Pregnant women in the US (n=362) completed an online survey about health and pregnancy. Questions regarding Zika assessed worry about infection (1 item), knowledge (9 items), feasibility of behavioural preventive strategies (6 items), and vaccine attitudes (3 items). Results Participants were mostly 25–35 years old (67%), non-Hispanic White (65%), had at least some college education (84%) and had been pregnant before (71%). Thirty-three percent were very worried about Zika, 41% somewhat, and 26% not at all worried. The mean knowledge score was 5.2+2.3 (range=0–9). Most answered that mosquitos transmit Zika correctly (86%); only 29% knew that adults could not die from it. The percent correct for the other items ranged from 48% (the virus can stay in semen for an unknown period of time) to 68% (mother-baby transmission). Women reported it would be ‘very hard’ to do the following during pregnancy: not travel to a Zika infested area (31%), abstain from sex (28%), use condoms (25%), use repellant (24%), not have their partner travel to a Zika infested area (19%), and wear long sleeves/pants (18%). A vaccine was viewed as very important (72%). Strategies were endorsed was as follows: vaccinate all women/men, 14–40 years old (38%); only women 14–40 years (20%), women or women/men planning a pregnancy (28%) and women whose partner has Zika (6%). Few (8%) reported not believing in vaccines. Seventy-two percent of the sample said they would agree to a Zika vaccine, 15% said they would decline. Conclusion Despite intensive media reporting on Zika, pregnant women had gaps in knowledge, other than mosquito transmission. A significant minority of women found it very hard to implement behavioural strategies during pregnancy, particularly prevention of sexual transmission. A Zika vaccine appears to be acceptable with a preference for universal strategies. Support: National Institutes of Health (R33AI098654)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMosquito-borne diseases and control→French-language works237,207→