MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626964149

Cervical Cancer Screening Among Ontario's Urban Immigrants

2012· dissertation· en· W2626964149 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Aïsha Lofters

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsImmigrationCervical cancerCancerCervical cancer screeningMedicineGeographyInternal medicineArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aisha Kamilah O. Lofters\nCervical Cancer Screening Among Ontario’s Urban Immigrants\nDoctor of Philosophy, 2012\nInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation\nUniversity of Toronto\nBackground: The majority of cervical cancers can be prevented because of the highly effective screening tool, the Papanicolaou (Pap) test. Relevant guidelines recommend routine screening for nearly all adult women. However, inequities in screening exist in Ontario. This dissertation, consisting of three studies, uses administrative data to advance knowledge on barriers to cervical cancer screening for Ontario’s urban immigrant population. \nMethods: First, we developed and validated a billing code-based algorithm for cervical cancer screening. We then implemented this algorithm to examine screening rates in Ontario among women with various sociodemographic characteristics for 2003-2005. Second, we compared the prevalence of appropriate cervical cancer screening in Ontario in 2006-2008 among immigrant women from all major geographic regions of the world and Canadian-born women. Third, we used a stratified multivariate analysis to determine if the independent effects of various factors that could serve as screening barriers were modified by region of origin for immigrant women for 2006-2008. \nResults: Our first study showed that our algorithm was 99.5% sensitive and 85.7% specific, and that screening inequities in Ontario’s urban areas are largest among women 50 years and older, living in the lowest-income neighbourhoods and new to the province. In our second study, we determined that immigrant women had significantly lower screening rates than their peers, with the most pronounced differences seen for South Asian women aged 50 years and above. In the final study, we demonstrated that living in the lowest-income neighbourhoods, being younger than 35 years or older than 49 years, not being enrolled in a primary care enrolment model, having a male provider, and having a provider from the same region of the world each significantly influenced screening for immigrant women regardless of region of origin.\nConclusion: These results add to the literature on health equity in cancer screening. Our findings demonstrate that Ontario’s urban immigrant women experience significant inequities in cervical cancer screening, and may offer guidance toward targeted patient and physician interventions to decrease screening gaps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207