Challenges in providing breast and cervical cancer screening services to Vietnamese Canadian women: the healthcare providers’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer and cervical cancer are major contributors to morbidity and mortality among Vietnamese Canadian women. Vietnamese women are at risk because of their low participation rate in cancer-preventative screening programmes. Drawing from the results of a larger qualitative study, this paper reports factors that influence Vietnamese women's participation in breast and cervical cancer screening from the healthcare providers' perspectives. The women participants' perspective was reported elsewhere. Semistructured interviews were conducted with six healthcare providers. Analysis of these interviews reveals several challenges which healthcare providers encountered in their clinical practice. These include the physicians' cultural awareness about the private body, patient's low socioeconomic status, the healthcare provider-patient relationship, and limited institutional support. This is the first Canadian study to identify the healthcare providers' perspective on giving breast and cervical cancer preventive care to the Vietnamese immigrant women. The insight gained from these healthcare providers' experiences are valuable and might be helpful to healthcare professionals caring for immigrant women of similar ethno-cultural backgrounds. Recommendations for the promotion of breast cancer and cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese women include: (i) effort should be made to recruit Vietnamese-speaking female healthcare professionals for breast and cervical health-promotion programmes; (ii) reduce woman-physicians hierarchical relationship and foster effective doctor-patient communication; (iii) healthcare providers must be aware of their own cultural beliefs, values and attitudes that they bring to their practice; and (iv) more institutional support and resources should be given to both Vietnamese Canadian women and their healthcare providers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".