Analysis of Women’s Knowledge, Health Risk Perceptions, Beliefs and Avoidance Behaviour in Relation to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Personal Care 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
Evidence highlights the association between endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) found in personal care and household products (PCHPs) and adverse reproductive and developmental health outcomes. Women are disproportionately at risk due to frequent use of PCHPs, encountering a variety of different chemicals daily. Despite known health risks, existing policies often fail to provide adequate protection, with gaps remaining in understanding women's knowledge, risk perceptions, and beliefs about EDCSs in PCHP, as well as how these influence avoidance behaviours. This study examines women's knowledge, health risk perceptions, beliefs, and avoidance behaviors regarding EDCs commonly found in PCHPs, including bisphenol A, lead, parabens, phthalates, perchloroethylene, and triclosan. Guided by the Health Belief Model, a questionnaire was administered to 200 women in the preconception and conception periods in Toronto, Canada. Analyses revealed that lead and parabens were the most recognized EDCs, while triclosan and perchloroethylene were the least known. Greater knowledge of lead, parabens, bisphenol A, and phthalates significantly predicted chemical avoidance in PCHPs. Higher risk perceptions of parabens and phthalates also predicted greater avoidance. Women with higher education and chemical sensitivities were more likely to avoid lead. These findings support the need for targeted education to improve awareness to reduce EDC exposure-especially among women.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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