MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3129977606 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-ps3-17

Abstract PS3-17: Patient and provider determinants of breast cancer screening among Ontario women age 40-49: A population based retrospective cohort study

2021· article· en· W3129977606 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle B. Nadler, Alex Marchand‐Austin, Peter C. Austin, Alexandra Desnoyers, Brooke E. Wilson, Aïsha Lofters, Noah Ivers, Eitan Amir

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Établissements canadiensInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCohortBreast cancerRetrospective cohort studyPopulationFamily medicineMammographyCohort studyCancerGuidelineHealth careBreast cancer screeningInternal medicinePathologyEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: For women aged 40-49, Canadian guidelines recommend individualized-decision making (based on risk assessment, values, and preferences) rather than routine screening mammography (SM). In this age group, family physicians are the gatekeepers to access SM; however, studies indicate substantial variability in practice patterns. There are few population-based data regarding uptake and patient/provider determinants of SM in this age group. We describe the uptake and frequency of SM and identify patient and provider level associations with SM in Ontario women aged 40-49. We hypothesized that SM would vary by provider characteristics and women’s demographics, suggesting lack of guideline-concordant care. Methods: This population-based retrospective cohort study linked health administrative databases to form a cohort of all Ontario women aged 40-49 between April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2019. Mammograms were identified using Ontario Health Billing codes. In order to identify mammograms that were specifically for screening, women were excluded if they had any prior breast MRI, mammogram, cancer diagnosis, oncologist visit, or breast surgical procedure. Sub-cohorts were created to identify women who had (a) at least one SM (“screen cohort”) and (b) 3 or more SM (“routine screen cohort”). Following SM, women were censored from cohorts if they had any cancer diagnosis, breast surgical procedure, oncologist visit, or death; however, breast cancer related outcomes were tracked for 6 months following SM, regardless of whether a censoring event occurred. Patient and provider characteristics were extracted for women in each cohort. A multivariable regression model was used to identify predictors of routine SM. Results: Of 2 million eligible women, 743 274 (35.6%) received a mammogram, 532 782 (25.5%) received at least one SM, and 90 651 (4.3%) received routine SM (3 or more). Table 1 demonstrates cohort characteristics. There were 0.32 and 0.52 mammograms per woman per year in the screen and routine screen cohort respectively. Call-backs were similar for women after the first SM compared to the third SM (9.5% vs 9.3%); however, there were more biopsies (3.2% vs 1.8%) and breast cancers diagnosed (1.2% vs 0.45%) within six months of the first SM. Compared to the full cohort, women in the routine screen cohort were more likely to have a family physician at cohort entry, be in higher-income quintiles, receive annual health exams, and receive have pap smears (p<0.001). Women in the screen cohort were more likely to have female providers and providers that were primarily paid fee for service versus capitation (p<0.001). Multivariable analysis will be reported at the meeting. Conclusions: Less than 5% of Ontario women 40-49 undergo routine SM. SM is associated with patient demographics related to higher socioeconomic status which could be related to higher risk of breast cancer and/or increased access to care. SM is also associated with some provider demographics which could be independent of breast cancer risk, suggesting lack of individualized risk assessment. Qualitative work is ongoing to explore this hypothesis. This information can inform guideline implementation strategies. Table 1: Patient and Provider Characteristics of ScreeningCharacteristicpercent (%) unless otherwise notedAll Women 40-49Screen Cohort (1 or more SM)Routine Screen Cohort (3 or more SM)Patient CharacteristicsAge at Cohort entryMean (median)42.5 (40)42.8 (42)41.7 (41)Age at Cohort exitMean (median)47.3 (50)48.5 (50)49.1 (50)Family Physician at Cohort entry90.0 %92.3%94.8%Income – top quintile20.7%22.3%24%Rurality Category – most urban76.3%79.0%81.2%Birth Location – Canada74.4%72.2%71.6%Annual Health Exams: at least one51.1%72.1%75.3%Pap Smear: at least one68.4%86.6%92.9%Provider CharacteristicsFemale44.8%47.2%52.1%Canadian Graduates70.3%70.3%72.1%Fee for Service model48.0%55.0%58.8% Citation Format: Michelle B Nadler, Alex Marchand-Austin, Peter C. Austin, Alexandra Desnoyers, Brooke E. Wilson, Aisha Lofters, Noah Ivers, Eitan Amir. Patient and provider determinants of breast cancer screening among Ontario women age 40-49: A population based retrospective cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-17.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,145
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,292

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,096
Tête enseignante GPT0,410
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Research→Même sujetGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→Travaux en français237 207→