MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010870781 · doi:10.1186/s12913-020-5073-2

Utilization of breast cancer screening in Kenya: what are the determinants?

2020· article· en· W3010870781 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Antabe, Moses Mosonsieyiri Kansanga, Yujiro Sano, Emmanuel Kyeremeh, Yvonne Galaa

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersGovernment of the Republic of Kenya
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerBreast cancer screeningNursing researchPublic healthPsychological interventionOddsHealth careMultivariate analysisDemographyHealth informaticsCancerEnvironmental healthGynecologyLogistic regressionMammographyInternal medicineNursingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer accounts for 23% of all cancer cases among women in Kenya. Although breast cancer screening is important, we know little about the factors associated with women's breast cancer screening utilization in Kenya. Using the Andersen's behavioural model of health care utilization, we aim to address this void in the literature. METHODS: We draw data on the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey and employ univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We find that women's geographic location, specifically, living in a rural area (OR = 0.89; p < 0.001) and the North Eastern Province is associated with lower odds of women being screened for breast cancer. Moreover, compared to the more educated, richer and insured, women who are less educated, poorer, and uninsured (OR = 0.74; p < 0.001) are less likely to have been screened for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, we recommend place and group-specific education and interventions on increasing breast cancer screening in Kenya.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

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

Citations81
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207