Geographic access to mammography screening centre and participation of women in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the impact of distance between women's residences and designated screening centres (DSC) on participation in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Programme, whether this impact varied according to the rural-urban classification and the proportion of participants who used the DSC nearest to their home. METHODS: Travel distance between the residence of 833 856 women and the nearest DSC (n=85) was estimated. Data were obtained from administrative and screening programme databases. The analysis made use of a log-binomial regression model adjusting for age and material and social deprivation. The proportions of participants who used the DSC nearest to their residence were measured. RESULTS: Compared to women living <2.5 km from a DSC, absolute decreases of 6.3% and 9.8% in participation rate were observed for distances of 50.0 to <75.0 km (rate ratios (RR)=0.88, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.89) and ≥75.0 km (RR=0.81, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.83), respectively. The lowest participation (42%) was observed in Montreal Island. The distance at which participation started to decrease materially varied according to rural-urban classification. Participation rates decreased at distances of ≥25.0 km in the Montreal suburbs and midsize cities, at ≥12.5 km in small cities and at ≥50.0 km in rural areas (interaction p<0.0001). The proportion of participants who had their mammography at the nearest DSC decreased with increasing distance. CONCLUSIONS: Distance affects participation and this effect varies according to rural-urban classification. The lower participation in Montreal Island, where all women lived <12.5 km from a DSC, argues for a major impact of other characteristics or other dimensions of accessibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".