MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936905872 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20180151

Cervical cancer screening among women living with HIV: a cross-sectional study using the baseline questionnaire data from the Canadian HIV Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS)

2019· article· en· W2936905872 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Alexandra de Pokomandy, Ann N. Burchell, Kate Salters, Erin Ding, Nadia O’Brien, Dada Mamvula Bakombo, Karène Proulx‐Boucher, Isabelle Boucoiran, Neora Pick, Gina Ogilvie, Mona Loutfy, Angela Kaida

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMcGill University Health CentreSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsMedicineReproductive healthCross-sectional studyCohortHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Cervical cancerGynecologyCohort studyBaseline (sea)ObstetricsDemographyFamily medicineCancerEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Cisgender women with HIV experience an elevated risk of cervical cancer compared with HIV-negative women, but this cancer can be prevented through regular cervical cancer screening. Our study objective was to measure adherence to current national cervical cancer screening guidelines among women with HIV in 3 Canadian provinces and identify factors associated with delays. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a cross-sectional study using the baseline questionnaire of the Canadian HIV Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS). Participants were recruited through clinics, peers and community organizations in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Women were eligible for inclusion if they were cisgender female with HIV, aged 21–70 years, and never had cervicectomy/hysterectomy. <h3>Results:</h3> Of 1189 eligible participants, 815 (68.5%) had received cervical cancer screening less than 1 year ago (i.e., as recommended), 211 (17.7%) 1–3 years ago (i.e., moderate delay) and 163 (13.7%) at least 3 years ago or never (i.e., long delay). Overall, 309 (26.0%) had never discussed the need for a Papanicolaou smear with a nurse/doctor. Factors associated with a long delay were living in Ontario (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29–4.88) or Quebec (adjusted OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.79–7.67) (v. BC), being sexually inactive in the past 6 months (adjusted OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.25–3.25), having unknown or &lt; 200 cells/mm<sup>3</sup> CD4 counts (adjusted OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.11–2.85) and having a male HIV care provider (adjusted OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.36–3.42). <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Over one-third of women reported cervical cancer screening delays, and one-quarter had never discussed cervical cancer screening recommendations with a health care provider. Additional efforts are needed to improve women’s and health care providers’ awareness of cervical cancer screening recommendations, particularly among women who are sexually inactive, who are immunosuppressed and who have male HIV care providers.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207