Evaluation of a breast selfexamination (BSE) program in a breast diagnostic clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of a breast self-examination (BSE) teaching program on women's knowledge about BSE, proficiency in performing BSE, and motivation to perform BSE. The program was developed for delivery by nurses in a breast diagnostic clinic, a clinic designed to meet the need for expeditious management of breast disease, current information about breast cancer risk, surveillance, and counselling. A convenience sample of 68 women attending the clinic in a regional cancer centre participated in a pre- and five month post-teaching program evaluation. The Toronto Breast Self Examination Instrument was used as the evaluation tool. There were statistically significant changes following the teaching program in the areas of knowledge about the correct technique for performing BSE, proficiency performing BSE, and confidence about finding changes when performing BSE. No significant changes were observed in motivation to practise BSE, although group scores did improve following the education. Participants found the video presentation and the review of BSE information pamphlets by the nurse to be the most helpful components of the BSE teaching program.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".