MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094896942 · doi:10.1188/03.onf.659-667

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Surrounding Breast Cancer Screening in Educated Appalachian Women

2003· article· en· W2094896942 on OpenAlex
Nan S. Leslie, Pamela Deiriggi, Suzanne Gross, M. Elizabeth DuRant, Cynthia D. Smith, Jennifer G. Veshnesky

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

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAppalachian RegionCancerBreast cancerAppalachiaFamily medicineGynecologyOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine how and what women learn about breast cancer and screening practices and which factors influence women's breast cancer screening practices. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of questionnaire data collected at the time of enrollment in a clinical trial. SETTING: Breast care center of a mid-Atlantic academic health sciences center. SAMPLE: 185 women in a predominantly Appalachian, entirely rural state. METHODS: Participants completed the Modified Toronto Breast Self-Examination Inventory and questions related to personal mammography practices at the time of enrollment before randomization in a longitudinal clinical intervention study. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Women's demographics, knowledge of breast cancer screening practices, adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines, and motivation, knowledge, and practice proficiency surrounding breast cancer screening. FINDINGS: These educated women had knowledge deficits about breast cancer, breast cancer risk factors, and screening guidelines, particularly the timing and practice behaviors of breast self-examination. Women who had received healthcare and cancer-screening instruction by healthcare providers, including advanced practice nurses, had greater knowledge of breast cancer and detection practices. CONCLUSIONS: Women still have knowledge deficits about breast cancer, breast cancer detection, and personal risk factors. In addition, some educated women in this study failed to practice breast cancer screening according to current guidelines. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Practitioners must continue to remind and update women about breast disease, and women's cancer-screening practices must be reinforced. All levels of providers should improve their rates of performing clinical breast examinations with physical examinations. Nurses, who greatly influence women's health care, must remain current in their knowledge of breast disease, screening, and treatment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.368 · 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