MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107586692 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v5n3p81

Dietary Behavior Related to Cancer Prevention in a Low Income Community

2014· article· en· W2107586692 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mona M. Abd El‐Maksoud, Afaf Salah Abd El-Mohsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryMedicineCancer preventionCancerGerontologyEnvironmental healthIntervention (counseling)NursingInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The incidence of cancer is increasing in developing countries. Diet and cancer have a close relationship. The objectives of this study were to measure the cancer prevention-related nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and practice and barriers related to healthy food in a low income community, and to assess their cancer worries. Subjects and methods: This cross-section descriptive study was carried out in a slum area in Cairo on a convenience sample of 414 adults permanently residing in the area. A structured interview questionnaire was used for collecting participants' socio-demographic data, knowledge about cancer, attitude and practice towards cancer dietary prevention, cancer worry scale, and the barriers preventing eating healthy food. Results: The study revealed a wide range of participants' knowledge scores. Participants' attitude towards a healthy diet was also low. The most deficient practices were related to the intake of balanced diet and vitamins, practice of exercise, and cancer screening. The most frequent barrier to a healthy diet was taste (42%), while the lack of information was the least (3.1%). Multivariate analysis showed that the knowledge score was positively predicted by cancer worry score. The attitude score was positively predicted by age and knowledge score, and the practice score by married status, crowding index, and attitude score. Conclusion: There is a poor level of knowledge and inadequate practices regarding cancer dietary prevention despite good attitudes, in addition to high worries about cancer. Implications for practice: There is urgent need for awareness raising intervention programs for dietary prevention of cancer.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207