MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362668535 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11071049

Validation of the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC): Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Brazilian Version

2023· article· en· W4362668535 on OpenAlexaff
Bruna Sordi Carrara, Marcos Sanches, Sireesha J. Bobbili, Simone de Godoy, Álvaro Francisco Lopes de Sousa, Jacqueline de Souza, Carla Aparecida Arena Ventura

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersUniversidade de São PauloFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsCronbach's alphaScale (ratio)Stigma (botany)Psychological interventionMental healthPsychologyContext (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)Clinical psychologyHealth careMental illnessPsychiatryPsychometricsNursingMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stigma towards people with mental illness is also present among health professionals. The study validated and estimated the reliability, dimensionality and structure of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) scale in Brazil. In this methodological study, health professionals (n = 199) from Family Health Units in Brazil were recruited by convenience sampling. The EFA conducted with 16 items resulted in four factors. The Cronbach's Alpha for the OMS scale was 0.74, which is considered to reflect reasonable reliability. The data presented contribute to the use of the scale in studies that investigate the level of stigma among health professionals towards people with mental illness, as well as in the development of anti-stigma interventions in this context.

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)0.000
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207