MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086807184 · doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1004-4

Knowledge, attitude and practice of breast self-examination among female undergraduate students in the University of Buea

2015· article· en· W2086807184 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast self-examinationBreast cancerMedicineFamily medicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Positive attitudeIncidence (geometry)GynecologyCancerPsychologyInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of breast cancer is on the rise in many parts of Africa. In Cameroon, there were an estimated 2625 cases per 100,000 in 2012. The awareness of breast cancer preventive methods is therefore critical in the reduction of breast cancer morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated the knowledge, attitude and practice of breast self-examination (BSE), among female undergraduate students in the University of Buea. METHODS: The study comprised 166 female students of ages 17-30years (mean = 22.8 ± 3) sampled randomly. Data was collected by a pretested self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Nearly three quarter (73.5%) of the respondents had previously heard of BSE. Only 9.0% knew how to perform BSE. Similarly, only 13.9% knew what to look for while performing BSE. Television (19.9%) was the main source of information on BSE. Although perceived by 88% of the respondents as important, only 3% had performed BSE regularly. Furthermore, only 19.9% of the respondents have been to any health facility to have breast examination. Overall, although a majority (63.3%) of the respondents had a moderate attitude towards BSE as an important method for early detection of breast cancer, just a modest 9.6% were substantially aware of it. Lack of knowledge on BSE was cited as the main reason for not performing BSE. A significant association was observed between knowledge and the practice of BSE (P = 0.029), and between attitude and the practice of BSE (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the current knowledge gap that exists in the practice of BSE in the prevention of breast cancer in the study population. Sensitization campaigns and educational programmes ought to be intensified in order to address this issue.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.162 · 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