Does the family physicians’ characteristics affect Cervical Cancer Screening rates?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionWhile the effectiveness of cervical cancer-screening (CCS) programs is well accepted, concern is growing regarding Family physicians (FP) poor adherence to CCS guidelines resulting in over and under screening. In Canada, it is a FP responsibility to ensure that the CCS is done as per guidelines and with appropriate follow-up.
 Objectives and ApproachTo identify primary care physicians’ characteristics that are associated with over and under CCS for eligible women in Calgary, Alberta.
 We accessed the Calgary Laboratory Services data for 1475 FPs practicing in Calgary and linked it with the Physicians database of College of Physicians and Surgeons Alberta database. We then matched FP’s gender, country and year of medical school graduation, years since medical school graduation, certification in family medicine and their clinic address with their CCS testing patterns. Using doctors as their own controls, we compared data from 2010-2016 to determine practice variations in CCS patterns subsequent to guideline changes.
 ResultsWe analyzed approximately 2,400,000 Pap test requisitions (approx. 300,000 per year) to identify screening patterns from 2010-2016 of 1475 family practitioners practicing in Calgary. Our preliminary results identified significant variations in the test ordering patterns of FPs. Approx. half of the male FPs were not performing CCS tests on their eligible female patients. Female FPs ordered more CCS tests than their male counterparts. FP trained in North America, were ordering more pap tests than FPS trained elsewhere. Decreased CSS was also observed among FPs practicing in Northeast Calgary.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsWe detected three CCS patterns: FPs who never perform CSS on eligible female patients; FPs who followed recommended guidelines for performing CCS tests and FPs who performed CCS tests, not following the guidelines. To ensure appropriate use of CSS, identifying intention-behavior relationships and innovative educational interventions for FPs are required.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".