Impact d'une brève intervention d'éducation à la santé relative à l'exposition aux perturbateurs endocriniens chez les femmes enceintes et les parents d'enfant(s) de moins de deux ans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : While the subject of endocrine disruptors (EP) is only rarely discussed in general medical consultations, these professionals, on the front line, could also be actors in the promotion of environmental health by providing advice and responding to needs encountered by vulnerable audiences. Objective : The main objective of this study was to assess the impact of a brief intervention of approximately 5 minutes on EP by health professionals on the change in behaviour of pregnant women and parents of at least one child under two years, to three months from the date of receipt of the information. Methods : Quantitative, multicenter, prospective study conducted between March 2024 and July 2024. 71 women were asked about their knowledge of EP and daily habits, then received a brief prevention on the subject through an information brochure. Participants were contacted again three months later to assess the impact of the intervention. Results : This study shows an improvement in the score before and after the short intervention with an average score of 3.56 (standard deviation = 1.43) at J0 against 4.88 (equart-type = 1.27) at M3. Showing an evolution of the score of 1.32 pts. There appears to be a small positive correlation between the patients' age and the questionnaire response score at J0 (Pearson coefficient = 0.13). It is not statistically significant (p = 0.29) and is not found in M3. At T0, there is a low positive correlation between the level of study and the score (rho = 0.29), statistically significant (p = 0.021). This suggests that a higher level of study is slightly associated with a better pre-intervention score. This association also exists in M3, however it is weaker (rho = 029) but no longer significant (p = 0.09). There is also an inverse correlation between the number of children and the score. This correlation is moderate (coefficient of -0.27 to J0 and -0.37 to m3) but significant in both cases (p= 0.027 to j0 and p= 0.004 to m3). 87% of the participants say that they have kept the booklet provided during the first interview, only 33% having re-consulted it. Conclusion : The position of the general practitioner in the care system gives him a privileged place to provide and relay preventive advice. In our study, awareness improved PE risk behaviours, which suggests the usefulness of a generalization of these actions in ambulatory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".