Factors Influencing Mammography Participation in Canada: An Integrative Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This integrative review critically examines quantitative and qualitative evidence concerning factors influencing the participation of Canadian women in mammography. Empirical studies published between 1980 and 2006 were identified and retrieved by searching electronic databases and references listed in published studies. Among the 1461 citations identified and screened, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria and were independently appraised by two researchers. Extracted data were categorized, summarized, compared, and interpreted within and across studies. The presentation of barriers and facilitators to mammography was guided by the Pender Health Promotion Model. Findings from this review showed that no published studies were specific to settings in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the three Canadian territories. The most common barriers to screening were membership in an ethnic minority and concerns about pain, radiation, and embarrassment. The recommendation of a health care provider for mammography was found to be the most common facilitator for the engagement of women in this health behaviour. The targeting of specific strategies aimed at overcoming identified barriers and the enhancement of facilitators are essential to improving mammography participation rates throughout Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".