Participation rates of Ashkenazi Jews in a colon cancer community‐based screening/prevention study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent colon cancer risk study, genetic assessment and colonoscopy were offered to virtually all of the adult Ashkenazi Jews in an urban community. The present study was designed to examine factors influencing participation and response in the initial study and to suggest strategies for improving participation in future health promotion programs. The study comprised a random sample of three groups of individuals who had been targeted for participation in the previous study: those who had (a) agreed to participate (n = 234); (b) declined participation (n = 179); and (c) failed to respond to a mailed recruitment package (n = 128). All participants completed a brief telephone survey. Key multivariate predictors of both response and participation were individuals' perceptions of the drawbacks of participating in colon cancer screening research and the degree of decisional conflict they experienced. Response was further predicted by the influence of spouses, family history of colon cancer, past knowledge of genetic testing for colon cancer, and education level. Participation was predicted by awareness that the study was supported by the Ashkenazi Jewish community, past experience with genetic testing, individuals' perceptions of the benefits of participating, and whether or not they had children. The degree to which individuals understand the purpose and nature of genetic screening research, along with their levels of decisional conflict and other psychosocial factors, may influence the likelihood of their participation in such research. Results of this study suggest a number of possible strategies for improving participation and response rates in disease prevention and detection studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".