Prevalence and Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening in Canadian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This representative study investigated the prevalence and factors associated with women's use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Women aged 50-74 were selected from the Ontario subsample of the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey. Women who had never screened for CRC (n = 3676) were compared with women who had ever had CRC screening (n = 2105). Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Service Use of predisposing, need, and enabling factors guided chi-square and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Fully 38% of women reported ever having CRC screening. Predisposing factors (older age, higher education, white race, currently having cancer [not CRC], and use of other screening tests), need factors (nonsmoking and physical activity level), and enabling factors (urban location, having a family doctor, more than five doctor visits annually, and greater sense of belonging), were each associated with higher odds of screening. Lower household income seemed to be associated with lower odds of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Despite CRC guidelines published before and during 2004, only 38% of women reported ever having CRC screening by 2005. Enabling factors contributed significantly to screening rates after adjustment for need factors, which provides some evidence that access to CRC screening by women was inequitable despite Canada's publicly funded healthcare system. Research findings can help develop female-specific strategies to increase rates of CRC screening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".