Explaining lesbians' practice of breast self-examination: Results from a UK survey of lesbian health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the reasons for lesbians' practice of breast self-examination (BSE). Previous research in the USA has suggested that lesbians are less likely than heterosexual women to practise BSE on a Design A combined quantitative and qualitative research instrument was designed to map patterns of breast health behaviour and to elicit qualitative explanations for those behaviours. Setting The study used a multiple sampling frame in order to achieve a socially and geographically diverse sample of participants living throughout the UK from Cornwall to the Outer Hebrides. Results Thirteen per cent ( n=137) of lesbians in the sample report monthly practice of BSE. Their stated reasons for regular BSE fall into five main categories: (i) 'Experiences of problems'; (ii) Awareness of particular risks'; (iii) 'Established routine'; (iv) 'Knowledge about BSE'; (v) 'Other'. Conclusion Lesbians' explanations for their regular practice of BSE may offer valuable insights into their decision making and help to inform the decisions of others to practise monthly BSE. The paper concludes by suggesting ways in which lesbians' explanations may be used to develop lesbian-specific health education and promotion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".