MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020924582 · doi:10.1089/152460901300039584

Rural Physicians' Perspectives on Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening: A Gender-Based Analysis

2001· article· en· W2020924582 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farah Ahmad, Donna E. Stewart, Jill I. Cameron, Ilene Hyman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women s Health & Gender-Based Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineReferralBreast cancerBreast cancer screeningConfidence intervalCervical cancerBreast self-examinationRural areaGynecologyDemographyObstetricsMammographyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies highlight the role of physicians in determining cervical and breast cancer screening rates, and some urban studies report higher screening rates by female physicians. Rural women in North America remain underscreened for breast and cervical cancers. This survey was conducted to determine if there were significant gender differences in practices and perceptions of barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening among rural family physicians in Ontario, Canada. One hundred ninety-one family physicians (response rate 53.1%) who practiced in rural areas, small towns, or small cities completed a mail questionnaire. The physicians' mean age was 44.4 years (SD 9.9), and mean number of years in practice was 16.6 years (SD 10.3). Over 90% of physicians reported that they were very likely to conduct a Pap test and clinical breast examination (CBE) during a periodic health examination, and they had high levels of confidence and comfort in performing these procedures. Male (68%) and female (32%) physicians were similar in their likelihood to conduct screening, levels of confidence and comfort, and knowledge of breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. However, the self-reported screening rates for Pap tests and CBE performed during last year were higher for female than male physicians (p < 0.01). Male physicians reported they were asked more frequently by patients for a referral to another physician to perform Pap tests and CBE (p < 0.001). Also, male physicians perceived patients' embarrassment as a stronger barrier to performing Pap tests (p < 0.05) and CBE (p < 0.01) than female physicians. No gender differences were observed in screening rates or related barriers to mammography referrals. These findings suggest that physicians' gender plays a role in sex-sensitive examination, such as Pap tests and CBE. There is a need to facilitate physician-patient interactions for sex-sensitive cancer screening examinations by health education initiatives targeting male physicians and women themselves. The feasibility of providing sex-sensitive cancer screening examinations by a same-sex health provider should also be explored.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

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

Citations47
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women s Health & Gender-Based MedicineSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207