Cervical Screening a Study on the Prevalence of the Risk-factors for Developing Cervical Cancer Among Young Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study had three aims: to determine the prevalence of the risk-factors for contracting HPV (the Human Papillomavirus) and developing cervical cancer among young women; to establish if there are any links between the presence of these risk-factors, attendance for cervical screening and abnormal cervical screening results; and to ascertain the key barriers to the prevention of cervical cancer. The risk-factors were identified from literature as being sexually active at a young age, having increasing numbers of sexual partners for females and their partners, having had a sexually transmitted infection/disease (STI), smoking and long-term use of the oral contraceptive pill. The research was conducted through a quantitative, self-completion internet survey, completed by 242 women aged 18-24 attending a third-level institute and analysed using SPSS (the Statistical Package for Social Sciences). The findings showed that the prevalence of the sexual behaviour risk-factors tended to occur concurrently; being sexually active before age 17 was linked to increasing numbers of sexual partners and the occurrence of STIs. The findings also showed that approximately one-quarter of participants had attended for cervical screening, of which, over one-third reported abnormal results. Additionally, the findings demonstrated that the presence of the abovementioned sexual behaviour risk-factors tended to increase the likelihood of cervical screening attendance and the reception of an abnormal result. The key barriers to the prevention of cervical cancer were identified as a lack of knowledge about the primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer: HPV and cervical screening respectively. The present study recommended that firstly, as the prevalence of the risk-factors appear to be increasing, cervical screening should be initiated from age 20 onwards, on the basis of the presence of the risk-factors, rather than being age-standardised at 25, and secondly, greater education and communication on the primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer should be disseminated to adolescents and young people.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".