U.S. pregnant women's knowledge and attitudes about behavioral strategies and vaccines to prevent Zika acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause significant infant morbidity. Little is known about pregnant women’s attitudes regarding behavioral strategies and hypothetical vaccination to prevent Zika infections and sequelae. Methods Pregnant women across the United States (N = 362) completed an online questionnaire regarding attitudes about Zika, including six behavioral prevention strategies (i.e., abstaining from sex, using condoms, not traveling to an area with Zika, their partner not traveling into an area with Zika, using mosquito repellant, wearing long pants and sleeves) and vaccination. Results Most women (91%) were married/living with the baby’s father, 65% were non-Hispanic White, and 71% had been pregnant. Seventy-four percent were worried about Zika, while 30% thought they were knowledgeable about Zika. The mean knowledge score was 5.0 out of 8 (SD = 2.09), and the mean behavioral strategies score was 4.9 out of 12 (SD = 3.7) with a range of 0 (none would be hard to do) to 12 (all would be hard to do). In a multivariable model, having had a sexually transmitted infection, living/traveling in an area with Zika, and worrying about Zika were significantly related to reporting behavioral strategies as hard to do. Seventy-two percent would be willing to be vaccinated. In the multivariable model, living/traveling in an area with Zika, believing they knew a lot about Zika, worrying about Zika, and considering Zika vaccine development as important were significantly associated with willingness to get vaccinated. Conclusions Pregnant women were worried about Zika, yet had gaps in their factual knowledge. Most women reported they would get vaccinated if a vaccine was available. Pregnant women who reported themselves as vulnerable (being worried, having lived in or traveled to a Zika area) were more likely to view behavioral strategies as hard to do and to accept vaccination.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".