Designing and Conducting Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Surveys in Psychiatry: Practical Guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) surveys are popular in health care because they provide useful information and appear easy to design and execute. There are subtleties, however, in such surveys that early career researchers need to be aware of. This article does not provide a detailed review of the subject, nor does it address theory; rather, it provides practical guidance on matters such as identifying the need for the survey; defining the target population; preparing the questions that address knowledge, attitudes, and practice; preparing options for the answers to the items in the questionnaire; deciding how to score the instrument and analyze the results; and validating the instrument. Specific examples are presented to help readers understand and apply the guidance in various contexts.
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 | 0.190 | 0.294 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.021 |
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".