Rural Physicians' Perspectives on Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening: A Gender-Based Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Several studies highlight the role of physicians in determining cervical and breast cancer screening rates, and some urban studies report higher screening rates by female physicians. Rural women in North America remain underscreened for breast and cervical cancers. This survey was conducted to determine if there were significant gender differences in practices and perceptions of barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening among rural family physicians in Ontario, Canada. One hundred ninety-one family physicians (response rate 53.1%) who practiced in rural areas, small towns, or small cities completed a mail questionnaire. The physicians' mean age was 44.4 years (SD 9.9), and mean number of years in practice was 16.6 years (SD 10.3). Over 90% of physicians reported that they were very likely to conduct a Pap test and clinical breast examination (CBE) during a periodic health examination, and they had high levels of confidence and comfort in performing these procedures. Male (68%) and female (32%) physicians were similar in their likelihood to conduct screening, levels of confidence and comfort, and knowledge of breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. However, the self-reported screening rates for Pap tests and CBE performed during last year were higher for female than male physicians (p < 0.01). Male physicians reported they were asked more frequently by patients for a referral to another physician to perform Pap tests and CBE (p < 0.001). Also, male physicians perceived patients' embarrassment as a stronger barrier to performing Pap tests (p < 0.05) and CBE (p < 0.01) than female physicians. No gender differences were observed in screening rates or related barriers to mammography referrals. These findings suggest that physicians' gender plays a role in sex-sensitive examination, such as Pap tests and CBE. There is a need to facilitate physician-patient interactions for sex-sensitive cancer screening examinations by health education initiatives targeting male physicians and women themselves. The feasibility of providing sex-sensitive cancer screening examinations by a same-sex health provider should also be explored.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».