Equity and practice issues in colorectal cancer screening: Mixed-methods study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate overall colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, patterns in the use of types of CRC screening, and sociodemographic characteristics associated with CRC screening; and to gain insight into physicians' perceptions about and use of fecal occult blood testing [FOBT] and colonoscopy for patients at average risk of CRC. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study using cross-sectional administrative data on patient sociodemographic characteristics and semistructured telephone interviews with physicians. SETTING: Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 to 74 years and physicians in family health teams in the Toronto Central Local Health Integration Network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of CRC screening by type; sociodemographic characteristics associated with CRC screening; thematic analysis using constant comparative method for semistructured interviews. MAIN FINDINGS: Ontario administrative data on CRC screening showed lower overall screening rates among those who were younger, male patients, those who had lower income, and recent immigrants. Colonoscopy rates were especially low among those with lower income and those who were recent immigrants. Semistructured interviews revealed that physician opinions about CRC screening for average-risk patients were divided: one group of physicians accepted the evidence and recommendations for FOBT and the other group of physicians strongly supported colonoscopy for these patients, believing that the FOBT was an inferior screening method. Physicians identified specialist recommendations and patient expectations as factors that influenced their decisions regarding CRC screening type. CONCLUSION: There was considerable variation in CRC screening by sociodemographic characteristics. A key theme that emerged from the interviews was that physicians were divided in their preference for FOBT or colonoscopy; factors that influenced physician preference included the health care system, recommendations by other specialists, and patient characteristics. Providing an informed choice of screening method to patients might result in higher screening rates and fewer disparities. Changes in policy and physician attitudes might be needed in order for this to occur.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".