Correlation between marital status and adequate pap test screening among Canadian women: An analysis of sociodemographic factors from the Canadian community health survey, 2007–2008.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e15537 Background: Medical literature shows that marital status serves as an important factor which influences the likelihood of women undergoing cervical cancer screening. In Canada, women have universal access to health care as well as cancer screening facilities. This study was conducted to determine the association between adequate Pap test screening (APT) and marital status, stratified by age, and the prevalence of APT among the Canadian women. Methods: Data for the analysis were obtained from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), a national cross-sectional study, conducted during 2007 and 2008. The analysis included 22,530 women who were 18 to 69 years of age. The regression model used accounted for potential effect modification and confounders to assess the association between marital status (being married), and adequate cervical cancer screening (APT). Results: The weighted prevalence of APT was 75%, and was higher among married women (79%). The group with APT had a higher weighted prevalence of presence of a regular doctor, were white, had higher educational level and were non-obese, in comparison to the group with inadequate pap test (IPT). After adjusting for covariates, stratifying by age and weighting for the general population, married women, in the age groups 18-29 (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.27;1.37), 40-49 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03;1.12) and 60-69 years (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02;1.2) had a statistically significant increase in the risk of APT compared to non-married women. Conclusions: Marital status is associated with an increase in adequate Pap test screening in almost all age groups of the Canadian female population. This finding reinforces that providers of cancer screening services should target their efforts to improve the results among non-married women.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".