MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280616281 · doi:10.5539/hes.v12n2p155

Online Health Education Program to Prevent Tobacco Use for Student Teachers during COVID-19 Pandemic in Thailand: Design, Challenges, and Outcomes

2022· article· en· W4280616281 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tharisara Chirasatienpon, Manatee Jitanan, Nannapat Ketkosan, Kanlapruk Polsorn, Chomlak Kongart, Chanakarn Sakulthaew

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKasetsart University Research and Development InstituteKasetsart University
KeywordsPandemicHealth educationMeditationIntervention (counseling)Tobacco controlPublic healthFocus groupPsychologyProgram evaluationMedical educationMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GerontologyNursingSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study developed an online health education program by applying the Health Belief Model with social support to prevent tobacco use by student teachers and evaluated the effectiveness of the program during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. This involved mixed method research divided into 2 phases, with phase 1 combining an online focus group discussion (n=8) and a literature review to develop an online health education program to prevent tobacco use, while phase 2 involved evaluating the effectiveness of the program. Phase 2 used a randomized pretest-posttest control group design consisting of an intervention group (n=30) and a control group (n=30) selected by simple random sampling for both groups from student teachers in academic years 1–5 in the Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. The result from phase 1 for the proposed program for the intervention group involved 8 weeks of online activities, including exercise, meditation, music, games and lectures by experts in public health, health education, and experiences shared by ex-smokers. Leaflets were provided to all participants in both the intervention and control groups. The results from phase 2 showed significant differences in knowledge (p < 0.000; p < 0.007), attitude (p < 0.000; p < 0.034) and risk behavior to tobacco use (p < 0.004; p < 0.025) for both the intervention and control groups at 8 weeks post-intervention compared to pre-intervention, respectively. The program could support, guidance, and contributions of the many individuals and organizations that have been involved in the online process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.313
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207