Current awareness in Canada of clinical practice guidelines for colorectal cancer screening.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTF-PHC) recently revised its screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). We wished to assess the effect of this change on the screening beliefs and clinical practice of primary care physicians. METHODS: We surveyed 160 primary-care physicians, quasi-randomly sampled, in June-July 2001 and again in April-July 2002, 9 months after publication of the guidelines. Descriptive statistics and McNemar chi2 analyses were carried out on data from physicians who responded to both surveys. RESULTS: Of the those sampled, 47% responded to both surveys. After the publication of the CTF-PHC guidelines, the proportion reporting that they recommend CRC screening to their patients at average risk increased from 43% to 60% (p = 0.02). Before publication of the revised guidelines 48% stated that the CTF-PHC did not support screening, compared with 24% afterward (p = 0.01). CTF-PHC guidelines were acknowledged by 30% to be a source of CRC screening information. Around 9 months post-publication, 24% of the physicians stated their awareness of the revised screening guidelines. The most commonly cited reasons for not recommending CRC screening to average-risk patients were that the evidence is inconclusive and that CTF-PHC guidelines do not support screening. CONCLUSIONS: After publication of the revised CTF-PHC guidelines more primary-care physicians reported that they recommend CRC screening to their average-risk patients. The belief that the evidence is inconclusive nevertheless remains a considerable barrier to implementation. To increase the use of screening for CRC, additional strategies are required.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".