MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401316063 · doi:10.1177/02537176241262737

Exploring the Perceptions of Indian Mental Health Professionals Regarding Areca (Betel) Nut Products: A Cross-sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4401316063 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Psychological Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral Health Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddictionCross-sectional studyMental healthMedicinePsychiatryArecaClinical psychologyNut

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Areca nut (AN) and AN products (ANPs) are commonly used as psychoactive substances with marked dependence potential. Scant information exists on the Indian mental health professionals' (MHPs) knowledge of AN-ANPs, attitude toward AN-ANP use/users, and behavior regarding their clients' AN-ANP use. To address this gap, a survey was undertaken to assess MHPs' knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral responses toward AN-ANP use and addiction. Methods: We developed a pretested, customized questionnaire and conducted a cross-sectional online survey among a random sample of MHPs. Results: The 209 respondents included 91 psychiatrists, 105 clinical psychologists, and 13 other MHPs from diverse settings. Among them, 46.89% believed that AN-ANP use does not fit the definition of abuse/addiction as per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10)/ICD-11. Among the psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and other MHPs, 60.4%, 48.6%, and 61.5% were unaware of any AN-ANP cessation protocols. The addictive potential of AN-ANP with tobacco was rated as severe by 68.1% of psychiatrists and 51.4% of clinical psychologists; 46.2% of other MHPs rated it as moderate. The addictive potential of AN-ANP without tobacco was rated as moderate by 50.5% of clinical psychologists and mild by 46.2% of psychiatrists. Of the sample, 67.46% discussed the harmful effects of AN-ANPs with clients, while 74.6% said a few or none of their clients sought help for AN-ANP cessation. Conclusion: Major lacunae were detected in the understanding of Indian MHPs about the addictive potential of AN-ANPs, management aspects, etc. An urgent need has been revealed for sensitization programs on AN-ANPs and the development of evidence-based cessation protocols.

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.

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)0.003
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.276 · 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