A Formative Evaluation of Two FASD Prevention Communication Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of placing FASD prevention messages in the women's restrooms of establishments serving alcohol in Alaska and the Yukon, regions with high rates of FASD. METHODS: Our team placed an FASD educational poster, and posters affixed to a pregnancy test dispenser, in women's restrooms of bars and restaurants. We compared drinking behaviors and knowledge and beliefs about FASD among participants at baseline and at follow-up. RESULTS: Respondents consisted of 2132 women who completed a baseline survey and 1182 women who completed both a baseline and a follow-up survey. Women in both groups showed improvement in knowledge of FASD; the dispenser group scored higher than participants in the poster group on the FASD Health Belief questions at both baseline and follow-up. Forty-three women learned they were pregnant from our pregnancy tests and alcohol consumption among pregnant women was lower at follow-up than at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: FASD prevention messages, particularly paired with pregnancy test dispensers, in the women's restrooms of establishments that serve alcohol can effectively promote informed alcohol consumption decisions among women who are, or may become, pregnant. SHORT SUMMARY: In this FASD prevention feasibility study, we found that FASD prevention messages, particularly paired with pregnancy test dispensers, placed in the women's restrooms of establishments that serve alcohol can effectively promote informed alcohol consumption decisions among women who are, or may become, pregnant.
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 | 0.039 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".