Satisfaction With Initial Screen and Compliance With Biennial Breast Screening at Centers With and Without Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A woman's experience during her initial breast screen can influence her participation in subsequent screening. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between a woman's satisfaction with her initial screening experience and compliance to biennial screening at centers with and without nurses. METHODS: A stratified random sample of compliers and noncompliers to biennial screening was selected from a cohort of 16 858 eligible women aged 50 to 65 years attending centers with and without nurses for their initial screen at the Ontario Breast Screening Program in 2002. Of these eligible women, 3387 were sent questionnaires, 2640 (77.9%) were contacted, and 1901 (72.0%) were interviewed. The association between satisfaction with initial screen and compliance was estimated separately for centers with and without nurses using logistic regression. RESULTS: Women attending centers with nurses were significantly less likely to comply with their next screen after their clinical breast examination if they were not completely satisfied with the service they received (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.57) or agreed that the clinical breast examination caused discomfort to their breasts (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.94). In addition, women attending centers with or without nurses were significantly less likely to comply if they did not understand why they needed to return for screening. CONCLUSIONS: : Nurses at screening centers have an opportunity to significantly impact a woman's compliance to biennial breast screening by providing a positive initial screening experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Emphasis should be placed on improving a woman's overall satisfaction with her initial screening experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".