Focus group reactions to an arts-based educational exhibit on menopausal hot flashes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess public reactions to an arts-based educational exhibit designed to immerse and engage people in scientific facts to increase their conceptual understanding of hot flashes. Our ultimate goals were to stimulate learning and conversations about menopausal hot flashes to change interactions between menopausal women and providers, and menopausal women and other people (family, friends, etc). Focus groups reacted to the concept art (graphics, miniaturized model); and a questionnaire for quickly assessing reactions. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive methodology, six focus groups of diverse people (n = 50) aged 13 to 64 years described their reactions to the art and questionnaire. Recruitment methods were word of mouth, advertisements on university websites, and a university-based participant registry. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and inductively derived codes. RESULTS: Reactions to the concept art were generally favorable. Participants remarked on appealing and less appealing aspects and age appropriateness. Appealing aspects were resonance with women's experiences, clear information, use of symbolism, and overall design. Less appealing aspects lacked resonance, contained confusing information, or unappealing design elements. Participants felt the exhibit should be open to all ages. The final questionnaire reflected participants' descriptions of the art's ability to stimulate learning, dispel myths, spur dialog, and increase empathy. CONCLUSIONS: The concept art is an appropriate tool for improving knowledge and communication about hot flashes. Displaying the concept art and/or future full-scale exhibit in healthcare settings or public venues may facilitate learning and communication among three groups-menopausal women, healthcare providers, and others.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".