MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149921957

Quebec breast cancer screening program: a study of the perceptions of physicians in Laval, Que.

2009· article· en· W2149921957 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nguyet Minh Nguyen, Diane Larocque, Daniel Paquette, Alejandra Irace‐Cima

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineMammographyBreast cancerReferralBreast cancer screeningQualitative researchPerceptionLimitingNursingGynecologyCancerPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify physicians' perceptions of breast cancer prevention in order to generate strategies to increase women's participation in the Quebec breast cancer screening program (QBCSP). DESIGN: Qualitative study using archival data and in-depth interviews. SETTING: Laval, Que, a suburban city north of Montreal. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty family physicians and 1 gynecologist practising in Laval who had received at least 1 screening mammography report in 2004 or 2005. METHODS: Archival data were obtained in order to refine our understanding of the QBCSP. In-depth individual interviews were conducted with participating physicians until data saturation was reached in order to determine physicians' knowledge of, beliefs and attitudes about, and behaviour toward preventive breast cancer practices, as well as their suggestions for enhancing patient compliance. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded, and the content was analyzed. MAIN FINDINGS: Respondents indicated that the screening age groups, the age for beginning clinical breast examination, and the instructions to patients about breast self-examination should be harmonized. Letters to patients should be shortened, simplified, and endorsed by physicians. Screening mammography reports should include more details and be clearer about patient follow-up. The need for patients to sign authorization forms for transmission of information related to their participation in the QBCSP should be reinforced by their physicians. Following abnormal mammogram results, services and procedures should be simplified and delays in appointments decreased. Referral for "orphan patients" (ie, patients without family physicians) should be supervised by nurse practitioners, with physician consultations when needed. CONCLUSION: This study provides a qualitative understanding of improvements or modifications needed in order to reach a screening mammography participation rate sufficient to reduce breast cancer mortality in women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207