Health Priorities and Health-Seeking Behaviors of Old Order Anabaptists in Southern Ontario With Emphasis on Cancer Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-screening rates are low among Old Order Anabaptists; the burden of cancer is unknown. PURPOSE: To investigate cancer and health in the Old Order Anabaptist context. Specifically, to describe health priorities and health-seeking behaviors, crudely estimate cancer burden, and identify predictors of cancer screening. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to households around Perth County, Ontario, in January 2014. RESULTS: Response rate was 45%. Cancer burden was low. Cancer was a lower priority than general and mental health. After adjustment, family/friends motivated cancer screening for regular screeners ( OR: 6.38, 95% CI [1.93, 21.07]) and symptoms was reported to motivate those underscreened/never screened ( OR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.24, 0.96]). CONCLUSION: Cancer-screening participation may be low because the burden of cancer is low and there are other high-priority health concerns. IMPLICATIONS: Integrated cancer screening and holistic care may improve participation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".