MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894191976 · doi:10.1200/jgo.18.97200

Inequities in Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer: Implications for Public Health Practice

2018· article· en· W2894191976 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGenetic testingBreast cancerPsychological interventionPublic healthPopulationHealth equityBreast cancer screeningDisadvantagedSocial determinants of healthEquity (law)Context (archaeology)Family medicinePublic relationsEconomic growthEnvironmental healthMammographyCancerPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and context: The Ontario Breast Screening Program for women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer is 1 of the first international models of a government-funded public health service that offers systematic genetic screening to women at a high-risk of breast cancer. However, since the implementation of the program in 2011, enrolment rates have been lower than anticipated. While there may be several reasons for this to happen, it does call into consideration the 'inverse equity law', whereby the more advantaged in society are the first to participate and benefit from universal health services. An outcome of this phenomenon is an increase in the health divide between those that are at a social advantage vs those that are not. Aim: Using an intersectionality lens this review illuminates the role of the social determinants of health and social identity in creating possible barriers in the access to genetic screening for hereditary breast cancer, and the implications for public health practice in recognizing and ameliorating these differences. Strategy/Tactics: Although it remains too early to understand the exact cause for underenrolment in the OBSP high-risk screening program, this review serves to illuminate how screening programs that are used as targeted interventions to improve health outcomes must take into consideration the complexities associated with utilization and need across the entire population. A failure to do so may further disenfranchise socially disadvantaged individuals and widen the health equity gap that currently exists between population groups based on social location. Program/Policy process: The Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) for High Risk Women is funded by the government; therefore, financial barriers in terms of access to care do not exist for individuals seeking screening. Despite this, the program has had low levels of enrolment based on their population targets (Cancer Care Ontario, 2012). Outcomes: While access to health care services is an important social determinant of health (Whitehead, 1992), the structure and design of health services can render them structurally unavailable and socially inacceptable to certain population groups (Gilson et al., 2007). Indeed, recent studies clearly demonstrate how socially disadvantaged individuals, such as those with lower levels of education, and those from ethnic minority groups consistently underuse health services despite the lack of a financial barrier to care (Maddison, 2011). What was learned: The way in which genetic testing is both accessed and used follow similar trends, such that higher levels of both income and education correlate with an increased awareness of genetic testing, a greater likely hood of receiving referrals for genetic testing, appropriateness of genetic counseling and the final decision to proceed with genetic testing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.349 · 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