Rural Physicians' Perspectives on Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening: A Gender-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".