Personal Care and Household Cleaning Product Use among Pregnant Women and New Mothers during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined product use among pregnant women and new mothers in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2020-June 2021). Women reported use of personal care and household cleaning products within the previous month, changes in antibacterial product use, receipt of healthcare provider advice, and opinions on environmental chemicals (n = 320). On average, women used 15 personal care products and 7 household cleaning products. Non-Hispanic Black women used nearly two more personal care products; non-Hispanic Black women, those with a college degree, and essential workers used 1-3 more household cleaning products. Women who were Hispanic or reported their race and ethnicity as Other were two times more likely to use antibacterial personal care products. Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and women who reported their race and ethnicity as Other were 1.5 times more likely to increase antibacterial product use during the pandemic. Nearly all women agreed that environmental chemicals pose health risks and are impossible to avoid, while less than one quarter received advice regarding product use. Product use is a modifiable source of chemical exposures. Results from this study suggest that women may have increased their product use during the pandemic. Healthcare providers may use the current focus on health hygiene to promote discussion and assessment of environmental chemical exposures with patients.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".