Enhancing access to cervical and colorectal cancer screening for women in rural and remote northern Alberta: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women in rural and remote northern Alberta access breast cancer screening through a mobile mammogram program (Screen Test). The Enhanced Access to Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening (EACS) project was a 2-year pilot that aimed to integrate cervical and colorectal cancer screening with the Screen Test program. This study compares cervical and colorectal cancer screening uptake among women screened through the pilot (Screen Test-EACS) versus Screen Test. METHODS: Screen Test-EACS was offered between 2013 and 2015 in selected rural and remote sites, with a focus on hard-to-reach women living in First Nations, Métis and Hutterite communities. Participation in cervical and colorectal cancer screening was analyzed for Screen Test and Screen Test-EACS participants 6 weeks before clients received their mammogram and then again 3 months after. RESULTS: A total of 8390 and 1312 women participated in Screen Test and Screen Test-EACS, respectively. Screen Test-EACS significantly increased uptake of cervical (10.1% v. 27.5%) and colorectal (10.9% v. 22.5%) cancer screening, increasing the prevalence of women up to date with screening from 52.5% to 62.9% for cervical cancer screening and from 37.3% to 48.7% for colorectal cancer screening. INTERPRETATION: Screen Test-EACS increased participation in and the overall prevalence of cervical and colorectal cancer screening among hard-to-reach clients in northern Alberta, probably through removal of barriers to access and increased awareness. Further research should focus on balancing the benefits of increased participation with the costs and potential risks of over-screening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".