MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401761171 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2024.2391207

Evaluating Multi-Jurisdictional Enteric Illness Outbreak Messaging in Canada: A Content Analysis of Public Health Notices

2024· article· en· W4401761171 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vayshali Patel, Lauren E. Grant, Hisba Shereefdeen, Melissa MacKay, Leslie Cheng, M Phypers, Andrew Papadopoulos, Jennifer E. McWhirter

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Communication · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsContent analysisPublic healthOutbreakText messagingEnvironmental healthMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceSociologyVirologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective risk communication during enteric illness outbreaks requires the provision of clear and consistent information to diverse audiences to reduce risk of exposure, inform behavior changes, and prevent illness. Most enteric illnesses are caused by pathogens transmitted through consumption of contaminated food or water, contact with animals, or person-to-person contact. When multi-jurisdictional outbreaks occur, the Public Health Agency of Canada posts web-based Public Health Notices (PHNs) to inform Canadians. This study evaluated the comprehensibility of PHNs to optimize federal risk communication approaches. Publicly available web-based PHNs (n = 42) from 2014–2022 were obtained. A codebook was developed using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Clear Communication Index (CCI) and Health Belief Model (HBM) and systematically applied. A SMOG readability calculator was used to determine reading grade level. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize coded data. The average reading grade level was above Grade 12 (13.9 ± 1.1). PHNs communicated the nature of the risk (100%) and behavioral recommendations (96.5%) clearly. An active voice was sometimes used (61.9%), but numerical information was less commonly presented using best practices (38.1%). The HBM was fully incorporated in seven PHNs, with most PHNs using five of six constructs (66.7%). PHNs shared similar information in a consistent order (75.0%). Aligning PHNs to best practices in risk communication is recommended, including writing content at a reading grade level that supports comprehension by diverse audiences, following the CCI to increase clarity, including all HBM constructs to promote behavior change, and maintaining message consistency.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.373
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.032 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth CommunicationSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207