The Development and Reliability Testing of a Tool to Assess Women’s Perceptions and Avoidance of Endocrine Disruptors in Personal and Household Products
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personal care and household products (PCHPs) often contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that pose health risks, especially for women. Women, frequent users of PCHPs, are exposed to approximately 168 chemicals daily. However, there are gaps in understanding women’s knowledge, risk perceptions, and beliefs regarding these chemicals, as well as how these constructs influence their avoidance behavior. Existing questionnaires on EDCs in PCHPs lack reliability and comprehensiveness. Guided by the Health Belief Model, this study developed a self-administered questionnaire targeting four key constructs: knowledge, health risk perceptions, beliefs, and avoidance behaviors related to six EDCs commonly found in PCHPs (lead, parabens, Bisphenol A, phthalates, triclosan, and perchloroethylene). The questionnaire was distributed to 200 women at in-person events and online. The internal consistency of the constructs was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. The questionnaire included six items assessing knowledge, seven items on risk perceptions, five items on beliefs, and six items on avoidance behavior for each endocrine-disrupting chemical. Cronbach’s alpha values indicated strong reliability across all constructs. This newly developed questionnaire offers a reliable tool for assessing women’s knowledge, risk perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors toward EDCs in PCHPs. These findings could inform public health research and intervention strategies aimed at reducing women’s exposure to EDCs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it