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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nan S. Leslie, Pamela Deiriggi, Suzanne Gross, M. Elizabeth DuRant, Cynthia D. Smith, Jennifer G. Veshnesky

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207