KNOWLEDGE ABOUT AND PERCEVIED RISK OF COLORECTAL CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for average risk women lags behind that for breast cancer, despite education campaigns advocating screening. Women often tend to overestimate their risk of breast cancer. Our purpose was to determine women's perceived risk of CRC and knowledge of risk factors relevant to screening in comparison with men. Methods: Population-based random digit dial telephone survey of 1808 adults aged 50 to 74 years living in the province of Alberta, Canada. A knowledge score based on knowledge of risk factors (age, family history, history of bowel polyps), awareness of screening tests (fecal occult blood tests [FOBT] and colonoscopy/flexible sigmoidoscopy), recommendations for screening, and symptoms was developed. Results: The lifetime risk of developing CRC was underestimated (<1/100) by 63.1%. A further 13.8% did not know the risk. Women were less likely than men to underestimate the risk (20.0% vs 29.4% indicated risk = 1/1000, P <0.0016). Perceived risk of developing CRC compared to others the same age was similar in men and women. Among average risk subjects, 47.2% rated their risk as the same and 38.2% as lower than others their age. Self-rated health status was strongly related to perceived risk among those at average risk: 58.3% of men and 55.6% of women who rated their health as excellent perceived themselves at lower risk of developing CRC than others their age. Women had higher knowledge scores than men (p <0.001) but substantial knowledge gaps were found for both genders with average correct scores of 65.0% and 58.0% for women and men respectively. Women were more likely than men to be aware that prior polyps and family history of CRC increased a person's chances of developing CRC. Among men and women, knowledge scores were higher among those who had a FOBT in the past two years and among those who had a colonoscopy/flexible sigmoidoscopy within the past five years. Conclusions: Women and men underestimate their risk of developing CRC. Although women have somewhat more knowledge about CRC screening than men, substantial knowledge gaps were found. Low perceived risk among women may partly explain why screening rates lag behind those for breast and cervical screening. Programs designed to increase knowledge about CRC, not just awareness of screening, may lead to increased uptake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".