Beliefs and attitudes about breast cancer and screening practices among Arab women living in Qatar: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite rising breast cancer incidence and mortality rates, breast cancer screening (BCS) rates among women in Qatar remain low. Previous studies indicate the need to better understand the many complex beliefs, values, and attitudes that influence Arab women's health seeking behavior for the development of culturally appropriate and effective intervention strategies to address breast cancer in the Middle East. This study investigates beliefs, attitudes, and BCS practices of Arabic-speaking women in Qatar. METHODS: A multicenter, cross-sectional quantitative survey of 1,063 (87.5% response rate) Arabic-speaking female Qatari citizens and non-Qatari residents, 35 years of age or older, was conducted in Qatar from March 2011 to July 2011. Associations between beliefs and BCS practice were estimated using chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Participants who adhered to BCS guidelines (BCS practice = Yes) were compared to those who did not (BCS practice = No). RESULTS: In addition to low levels of awareness and low participation rates in BCS, one quarter of the participants stated their doctors talked to them about breast cancer, and less than half of the women interviewed believed breast cancer can be prevented. Women who engaged in BCS practice were more likely to have a doctor who talked to them about breast cancer, to believe they were in good-excellent health, that cancer can be prevented, or that cancer might be hereditary. The majority wanted to know if they had cancer and felt their health care needs were being met. The main reasons given for not planning BCS were lack of a doctor's recommendation, fear, and embarrassment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that a variety of channels (health care providers, media, breast cancer survivors, community leaders) should be utilized to create culturally appropriate breast cancer intervention programs and increased awareness of breast cancer, BCS, and the benefits of early detection of breast cancer. Employment of these measures will reduce breast cancer mortality rates among Arabic-speaking women living in the State of Qatar.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".