Determinants of mammography use in rural and urban regions of Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: National guidelines advocate biennial mammography screening for asymptomatic women aged 50-69 years. Unfortunately many women do not abide by such recommendations, and evidence indicates that compliance rates are lower in rural areas. METHODS: We estimated logistic regression models using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey for 2002/03 and 2004/05. We identified the extent of regional variation within and between Canadian provinces using a new and more detailed set of rural indicators based on economic zones of influence, after accounting for a range of demographic and socio-economic factors. RESULTS: The odds of asymptomatic women aged 50-69 years having undergone mammography during the previous 2 years were significantly lower for those residing in relatively remote and rural areas than for those residing in census metropolitan areas (odds ratio [OR] 0.58, confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.80). This was also true of women residing in certain other rural areas that had some limited labour market attachment to larger urban areas (OR 0.81, CI 0.70-0.93), but there were no significant differences between smaller and larger urban areas. We also found variation in mammography use among women living in rural and urban areas across provinces. CONCLUSION: Mammography use is significantly lower in rural and remote areas, even after a range of other demographic and socio-economic factors are accounted for. One important factor underpinning this result appears to be differences in attitude about the importance of regular mammography screening between women residing in rural and urban areas. Information campaigns raising awareness about the importance of mammography screening should be targeted, in particular, at women residing in rural and remote areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".