Understanding the role of oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) status on adherence behaviors among women with abnormal cervical cytology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the introduction of oncogenic Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing into cervical screening there is a renewed focus on primary prevention among high-risk groups. To date, little is known about the effectiveness of this program, and the extent to which individual-level factors, such as psychosocial health and agency, may play a role. In particular, it is unclear if knowledge of one's oncogenic HPV status impacts on adherence behaviors amongst women with screening abnormalities. The purpose of this study was to identify if clinical, demographic or psychosocial factors predict non-adherence with recommended colposcopy follow-up. METHODS: This prospective pilot study included 145 women referred to a large Toronto colposcopy clinic between December, 2013 and September, 2014. Demographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics were collected at three points in time: (1) at initial colposcopy consultation; (2) 4-6 weeks following initial consultation, and; (3) at time of follow-up appointment (within 12 months of initial consultation). RESULTS: Overall, 13% (n = 145) of the women were classified as non-adherent. Older women (OR = 0.73, p < 0.01) and those with higher-grade lesions (OR = 0.10, p < 0.01) were less likely to be non-adherent, whereas current smokers (OR = 22.46, p < 0.01) were more likely to be non-adherent. While not statistically significant, variation in rates of non-adherence amongst the various HPV status groups (untested; 15.3%, HPV positive; 5.3%, HPV negative; 6.7%) warrants further study. CONCLUSION: Findings of this study indicate that younger women, those with higher-grade lesions and current smokers were more likely to be non-adherent to recommended colposcopy follow-up. While HPV status did not reach statistical significance, the direction of this finding suggests that testing for HPV may have a positive reinforcing role on adherence to follow-up. The direction of this finding warrants further study, and potentially a practical clinical goal as HPV testing for women becomes standard of care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".