Internet Survey Regarding Knowledge About the Common Cold in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Our aim was to assess people’s knowledge about the common cold and to identify factors leading to medical consultation for intravenous infusion or injection. We expect that this knowledge will be used to develop educational interventions that facilitate appropriate self-care and decision-making regarding whether or not to seek medical consultation. Methods: This study was conducted among people aged 20 to 79, excluding healthcare professionals. A national Internet survey administered in 2012 asked 17 questions about the prevention of, general knowledge about, and behaviors for coping with the common cold. Factors associated with the belief that early symptom relief could be achieved by infusion or injection were evaluated by multivariate analysis. Results: Three hundred and forty-eight (348) people (mean age: 48.6 ± 16.9 years) were included in the analysis. Nearly 80% of participants endorsed questionnaire items stating that “taking cold medicines earlier” and “receiving an infusion or injection” were appropriate actions for recovering from a cold, and more than 60% reported that “you should see a doctor when you catch a cold”. Factors affecting the expectation that infusion or injection would provide early symptom relief included younger age and inaccurate knowledge about treatment of the common cold, for instance the idea that “you can recover from a cold earlier if you take cold medicines”. Conclusions: We found that people’s knowledge about prevention of the common cold was relatively sufficient, but their understanding of the clinical issues and treatment related to the common cold was not. Since the expectation that infusion or injection would provide early symptom relief was associated with inaccurate knowledge about treatment of the common cold, it is considered that people require further health literacy education. Clin Infect Immun. 2018;3(2):37-44 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cii56w
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".