Attitudes Toward HPV Testing: Interview Findings From a Random Sample of Women in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As most women diagnosed with cervical carcinoma have been "inadequately screened," improvements in screening are critical. After abnormal Pap test findings (through liquid-based cytology), residual specimens now can be tested simultaneously for oncogenic types of Human Papilloma virus (HPV). If these "reflex" HPV tests are negative, Pap tests need not be repeated for 12 months. Women with positive oncogenic HPV tests, however, can be referred immediately for colposcopy. There has been concern that "stigma" issues could be associated with positive HPV status (because of its sexual transmission) that might cause women to avoid this reflex HPV testing. We addressed this concern by assessing whether stigma issues surface in relation to HPV testing. We randomly selected 20 women and administered to them semistructured telephone interviews that included responses to a scenario of reflex HPV-DNA testing. Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively. Highly limited knowledge levels were found about HPV, but, following education about screening options, there was no rejection of HPV testing. In conclusion, it appears that women favor reflex HPV testing due to its "convenience" and perceptions that it is "the least intrusive option more definitive than Pap testing."
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".