MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2904751750 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v10n12p156

Women’s Knowledge of Health Promotion in the Prevention of Breast and Cervical Cancer in Oshakati Health District, Namibia

2018· article· en· W2904751750 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saara Suoma Iita, Agnes Van Dyk, Wilma Wilkinson, Olivia Ningeninawa Tuhadeleni

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerFamily medicineCervical cancerAttendancePopulationHealth promotionBreast self-examinationGynecologyCancerObstetricsNursingEnvironmental healthPublic healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The study aimed to explore and describe the knowledge of women regarding health promotion in the prevention of breast and cervical cancer. This study was carried out in the Oshakati district at the Intermediate Hospital Oshakati. METHODOLOGY: A quantitative approach was used for this study. This approach was chosen in order to provide a comprehensive picture and understanding of the women’s knowledge or awareness of health promotion in the prevention of breast and cervical cancer. The study population consisted of all women of child-bearing age, aged 15 to 49, in the Oshakati health district, that is, 41,985. The research sample was identified as 10% of the study population, thus numbering 419 respondents. The researcher personally distributed 419 questionnaires to every second woman of child-bearing age admitted to the Intermediate Hospital Oshakati. RESULTS: The findings indicate that awareness of information relating to breast and cervical cancer exists in Oshakati Health District. However, overall knowledge on the causes of breast and cervical cancer, risk factors for breast cancer and warning signs of cervical cancer was very poor. The findings also revealed that while many respondents were informed about breast self-examination (BSE) and had practised it, very few respondents acknowledged clinical breast examination (CBE) attendance once a year, or the use of mammography and sonar attendance as additional screening methods. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION: Based on the findings the study recommends that women should share information with their peers; in addition, radio should be used to disseminate such information as it is the most reliable source of information in the rural areas. Information, education and communication materials on the prevention of breast and cervical cancer should be developed and disseminated to the public. Women should be encouraged to develop a reading culture in order to increase their knowledge.

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)0.002
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.431
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

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→