Moderate psychological distress as a barrier to breast cancer screening among women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the relationship between Breast Cancer Screening (BCS) and Moderate Psychological Distress (MPD). Also, to assess the effect of aggregating women with No Psychological Distress (NPD) and MPD into one group, as done in prior studies when evaluating the relationship between BCS and Psychological Distress (PD).Methods: The study population comprised of 34,565 women aged 50-74 years who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2013 to 2017. The Kessler-6 PD index score (0-24) was dichotomized (0-12: NPD; > 13: Severe Psychological Distress SPD) and trichotomized (0-5: NPD; 5-12: MPD; > 13 SPD). Two multivariate logistic regressions were conducted for the dichotomous and trichotomous PD categories. Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use guided the choice of covariates. Data analysis was conducted using SAS version 9.4.Results: Our study showed 4.6% had SPD, and 17.9% had MPD. The latter group (MPD) was included in the NPD group in the dichotomous analysis. In the dichotomous analysis, women with SPD (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.63, 0.81, p < .00001) were less likely to have received a mammogram than those with NPD. In the trichotomous model, women with SPD (aOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.67, 0.87, p = .0001) and MPD (aOR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.78, 0.91, p <.00001) were both less likely to have had a mammogram than those with NPD.Conclusions: Prior studies that included individuals with MPD among those with NPD overestimated the effect of SPD on mammography and minimized the importance of targeting women with MPD along with those that have SPD to enhance the uptake of mammography.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".