MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1605306112 · doi:10.1007/bf03405134

Individual and regional determinants of mammography uptake.

2004· article· en· W1605306112 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anita Kothari, Stephen Birch

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammographyResidenceCensusHealth promotionLogistic regressionMultilevel modelPopulationPerspective (graphical)MedicinePromotion (chess)Breast cancer screeningGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental healthPsychologyPublic healthBreast cancerNursingPolitical scienceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Analysis of mammography utilization has traditionally been performed from an individual-level perspective. The purpose of this study was to explore the combined influence of individual- and regional-level determinants of mammography utilization. METHODS: Logistic hierarchical multilevel modelling was used to investigate the influences of region of residence and individual characteristics on mammography utilization. Socioeconomic status information about health planning regions was derived from the 1996 Canadian Census. Individual-level information was extracted from the 1996 National Population Health Survey. RESULTS: After controlling for individual-level education, regions with fewer high school graduates had lower levels of mammography utilization. A cross-level interaction between regional-level education and individual-level social involvement was found. Other individual-level variables associated with screening confirmed previous literature findings. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that higher levels of participation in social activities modify the detrimental influence on mammography utilization of living in a less educated region. This challenges the current focus of mammography screening research on individual-level determinants of uptake. Multilevel, synergistic strategies to possibly achieve higher levels of screening should be considered by health promotion program planners.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207