MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399959505 · doi:10.2196/52666

Changes in Infectious Disease–Specific Health Literacy in the Post–COVID-19 Pandemic Period: Two-Round Cross-Sectional Survey Study

2024· article· en· W4399959505 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yusui Zhao, Yue Xu, Dingming Yao, Qingqing Wu, Heni Chen, Xiujing Hu, Yu Huang, Xuehai Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cross-sectional studyEnvironmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicineHealth literacyPublic healthSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)DiseaseVirologyOutbreakHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Infectious disease-specific health literacy (IDSHL) is a crucial factor in the development of infectious diseases. It plays a significant role not only in mitigating the resurgence of infectious diseases but also in effectively averting the emergence of novel infections such as COVID-19. During the 3 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, China primarily adopted nonpharmaceutical interventions, advocating for people to avoid crowded places and wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Consequently, there has been a dearth of research concerning IDSHL and its corresponding focal points for health education. Objective: This study aimed to (1) evaluate the changes in IDSHL scores between 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2022 (the postepidemic period of COVID-19) and (2) explore the risk factors affecting IDSHL using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Methods: This study used 2-round cross-sectional surveys, conducted in 2019 and 2022, respectively, in 30 counties in Zhejiang Province, China. Multiple-stage stratified random sampling was used to select households, and a Kish grid was used to identify participants. An identical standardized questionnaire consisting of 12 closed-ended questions was used to measure IDSHL scores before and after the COVID-19 pandemic (2019 and 2022). Standard descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, t tests, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the data. Results: The 2-round cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2019 and 2022 yielded, out of 19,366 and 19,221 total questionnaires, 19,257 (99.44% response rate) and 18,857 (98.11% response rate) valid questionnaires, respectively. The correct response rate for the respiratory infectious diseases question "When coughing or sneezing, which of the following is correct?" increased from 29.10% in 2019 to 37.92% in 2022 (χ²1=332.625; P<.001). The correct response rate for the nonrespiratory infectious diseases question "In which of the following ways can hepatitis B be transmitted to others?" decreased from 64.28% to 59.67% (χ²1=86.059; P<.001). In terms of IDSHL scores, a comparison between 2022 and 2019 revealed notable statistical differences in the overall scores (t1=10.829; P<.001) and across the 3 dimensions of knowledge (t1=8.840; P<.001), behavior (t1=16.170; P<.001), and skills (t1=9.115; P<.001). With regard to the questions, all but 4 exhibited statistical differences (P<.001). Multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that the 2022 year group had a higher likelihood of possessing acquired IDSHL than the 2019 group (odds ratio 1.323, 95% CI 1.264-1.385; P<.001). Conclusions: When conducting health education, it is imperative to enhance efforts in nonrespiratory infectious disease health education, as well as respiratory infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Health education interventions should prioritize ethnic minority populations with a poor self-health status and low education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207