MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092471692 · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09616-2

Sociodemographics and their impacts on risk factor awareness and beliefs about cancer and screening: results from a cross-sectional study in Newfoundland and Labrador

2020· article· en· W3092471692 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fuyan Shi, Lance Garrett Shaver, Yujia Kong, Yanqing Yi, Kris Aubrey‐Bassler, Shabnam Asghari, Holly Etchegary, Kazeem Adefemi, Peter Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersYoung Scientists FundNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsLogistic regressionOdds ratioCross-sectional studyPublic healthDescriptive statisticsDemographySocioeconomic statusRisk factorOddsEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePopulationNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Our objective was to examine cancer risk factor awareness and beliefs about cancer treatment, outcomes, and screening, and how these are mediated by sociodemographic variables, among Newfoundland and Labrador residents. Methods Participants aged 35 to 74 were recruited through Facebook advertising, and a self-administered online questionnaire was used to collect data. Descriptive statistics, Spearman rank correlations, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Results Of the 1048 participants who responded and met the inclusion criteria for this study, 1019 were selected for this analysis. Risk factor recognition was generally good, though several risk factors had poor awareness: being over 70 years old (53.4% respondents aware), having a low-fiber diet (65.0%), and drinking more than 1 unit of alcohol per day (62.8%). Our results showed that the participants’ awareness of risk factors was significantly associated with higher income level ( r s = 0.237, P < 0.001), higher education ( r s = 0.231, P < 0.001), living in rural regions ( r s = 0.163, P < 0.001), and having a regular healthcare provider ( r s = 0.081, P = 0.010). Logistic regression showed that among NL residents in our sample, those with higher income, post-secondary education, those in very good or excellent health, and those with a history of cancer all had higher odds of having more positive beliefs about cancer treatment and outcomes. Those with a history of cancer, and those with very good or excellent health, also had higher odds of having more positive beliefs about cancer screening. Finally, compared to Caucasian/white participants, those who were non-Caucasian/white had lower odds of having more positive beliefs about cancer screening. Conclusion Among adults in NL, there was poor awareness that low-fiber diets, alcohol, and age are risk factors for cancer. Lower income and education, rural residence, and not having a health care provider were associated with lower risk factor awareness. We also found a few associations between sociodemographic factors and beliefs about cancer treatment and outcomes or screening. We stress that while addressing awareness is necessary, so too is improving social circumstances of disadvantaged groups who lack the resources necessary to adopt healthy behaviours.

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)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207