Patterns and Trends of Cancer Screening in Canada: Results From a Contemporary National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the patterns and trends of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening within a contemporary cohort of Canadian adults. METHODS: Canadian Community Health Survey datasets (2007-2016) were accessed and 3 cohorts were defined: (1) a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening cohort, defined as men and women aged 50 to 74 years with complete information about CRC screening tests and their timing; (2) a breast cancer screening cohort, defined as women aged 40 to 74 years with complete information about mammography and its timing; and (3) a cervical cancer screening cohort, defined as women aged 25 to 69 years with complete information about the Papanicolaou (Pap) test and its timing. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was then performed to evaluate factors associated with not having timely screening tests at the time of survey completion. RESULTS: A total of 99,820 participants were considered eligible for the CRC screening cohort, 59,724 for the breast cancer screening cohort, and 46,767 for the cervical cancer screening cohort. Among eligible participants, 43% did not have timely recommended screening tests for CRC, 35% did not have timely mammography (this number decreased to 26% when limiting the eligible group to ages 50-74 years), and 25% did not have a timely Pap test. Lower income was associated with not having a timely recommended screening tests for all 3 cohorts (odds ratios [95% CI]: 1.86 [1.76-1.97], 1.89 [1.76-2.04], and 1.96 [1.79-2.14], respectively). Likewise, persons self-identifying as a visible minority were less likely to have timely recommended screening tests in all 3 cohorts (odds ratios for White race vs visible minority [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.83-0.92], 0.85 [0.80-0.91], and 0.66 [0.61-0.70], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of eligible individuals are missing timely screening tests for CRC. Moreover, at least one-quarter of eligible women are missing their recommended breast and cervical cancer screening tests. More efforts from federal and provincial health authorities are needed to deal with socioeconomic disparities in access to cancer screening.
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 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".