Are cervical and breast cancer screening programmes equitable? The case of women with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective cancer screening must be available for all eligible individuals without discrimination. Lower rates of cervical and breast cancer screening have been reported in certain groups compared with women from the general population, such as women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Research on the factors explaining those observed differences is crucial to determine whether practices are unfair and could be improved. The aim of this population-based study was to describe cancer screening utilisation by women with IDD in Ontario, Canada compared with other women in Ontario. The specific objectives were (1) to estimate the rates of cervical and breast cancer screening among eligible women with IDD in Ontario; (2) to compare the rates of cervical and breast cancer screening between eligible women with and without IDD; and (3) to examine if any observed differences between women with and without IDD persist after factors such as age, socio-economic status, rurality and healthcare utilisation are accounted for. METHOD: This study draws women with IDD from an entire population, and draws a randomly selected comparison group from the same population. It controls for important confounders in cancer screening within the limitations of the data sources. The study was conducted using health administrative databases and registries in Ontario, Canada. Two cohorts were created: a cohort of all women identified as having an IDD and a cohort consisting of a random sample of 20% of the women without IDD. RESULTS: The proportion of women with IDD who are not screened for cervical cancer is nearly twice what it is in the women without IDD, and 1.5 times what it is for mammography. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that women with IDD experience inequities in their access to cancer screening. Public health interventions targeting this population should be implemented.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 it