MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994944692 · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-537

Evaluating the impact of public health initiatives on trends in fecal occult blood test participation in Ontario

2014· article· en· W1994944692 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gladys Honein‐AbouHaidar, Linda Rabeneck, Lawrence Paszat, Rinku Sutradhar, Jill Tinmouth, Nancy N. Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthSunnybrook HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCancer Care OntarioPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineFecal occult bloodPublic healthRandomized controlled trialTest (biology)Quarter (Canadian coin)DemographyHealth careColorectal cancerGerontologyHealth policyHealth services researchIncentiveSurgeryPolitical scienceNursingCancerGeographyInternal medicineColonoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of two randomized controlled trials (RCT) in 1996 demonstrating the effectiveness of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, several public health initiatives have been introduced in Ontario to promote FOBT participation. We examined the effect of these initiatives on FOBT participation and evaluated temporal trends in participation between 1994 and 2012. METHOD: Using administrative databases, we identified 18 annual cohorts of individuals age 50 to 74 years eligible for CRC screening and identified those who received FOBT in each quarter of a year. We used negative binomial segmented regression to examine the effect of initiatives on trends and Joinpoint regression to evaluate temporal trends in FOBT participation. RESULTS: Quarterly FOBT participation increased from 6.5 per 1000 in quarter 1 to 41.6 per 1000 in quarter 72 (January-March 2012). Segmented regression indicated increases following the publication of the RCTs in 1996 (Δ slope = 6%, 95% CI = 4.3-7.9), the primary care physician financial incentives announcement in 2005 (Δ slope = 2.2%, 95% CI = 0.68-3.7), the launch of the ColonCancerCheck (CCC) Program (Δ intercept = 35.4%, 95% CI = 18.3 -54.9), and the CCC Program 2-year anniversary (Δ slope = 7.2%, 95% CI = 3.9 - 10.5). Joinpoint validated these findings and identified the specific points when changes occurred. CONCLUSION: Although observed increases in FOBT participation cannot be definitively attributed to the various initiatives, the results of the two statistical approaches suggest a causal association between the observed increases in FOBT participation and most of these initiatives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207