MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317534564 · doi:10.1177/0017896915580446

Teaching tools to engage Anishinaabek First Nations women in cervical cancer screening: Report of an educational workshop

2015· article· en· W2317534564 on OpenAlex
Ingeborg Zehbe, Brianne Wood, Pamela Wakewich, Marion Maar, Nicholas Escott, Naana Afua Jumah, Julian Little, Alberto Severini, Ann N. Burchell, Gina Ogilvie, Ian D. Graham, Pauline Sameshima

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreLakehead UniversityNOSM UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChina Scholarship CouncilPublic Health Agency of CanadaAlberta Health Services
KeywordsCervical cancerParticipatory action researchMedicineReproductive healthNursingHealth promotionMedical educationHealth educationCervical screeningFamily medicinePsychologyPublic healthSociologyCancerPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore educational strategies for engaging First Nations women in Canada to attend cervical cancer screening. DESIGN: Within a participatory action research framework, semi-structured interviews with health-care providers in First Nations communities revealed that education about the value of screening is perceived as being a key factor to promote cervical cancer screening. SETTING: To obtain feedback from workshop informants, a 1-day educational workshop was held to identify appropriate educational intervention strategies, which would be applied in a forthcoming randomised controlled cervical screening trial. METHODS: Common discussion and discussion groups, which were facilitated by a First Nations workshop moderator and a note taker. RESULTS: This workshop helped to strengthen the ethical space dialogue with the First Nations communities with whom the study team had established research partnerships. The workshop atmosphere was relaxed and the invited informants decided that an educational health promotion event for community women needed to be held prior to inviting them to the cervical screening trial. Such an event would provide an opportunity to communicate the importance of attending regular cervical screening allowing women to make informed decisions about screening participation. Complementary promotional items, including an eye-catching pamphlet and storytelling, were also suggested. CONCLUSION: The key messages from the events and promotional items can help to destigmatise women who develop a type of cancer that is caused by a sexually transmitted virus that affects both men and women. Developing and implementing positive health education that respectfully depicts female bodies, sexuality and health behaviours through a First Nations lens is strongly warranted.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.328 · 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