Muslim Syrian refugee women’s exploration of breast cancer preventative care in a Western Canadian prairie city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to discuss the barriers to preventative breast cancer screening (BCS) among Muslim Syrian refugee women in a Western Canadian Prairie city. Design/methodology/approach Situated within a larger mixed-method study aimed at identifying barriers and facilitators to breast cancer (BC) preventative practices, the authors interviewed three key informants to get an in-depth understanding of the cultural, religious and social factors affecting knowledge of BC and BCS practices among Muslim Syrian refugee women. Findings Qualitative findings confirm quantitative results revealing that knowledge about BC and cultural and religious barriers on gender might translate into poor health outcomes for Muslim Syrian refugee women in a Western Canadian city. Research limitations/implications This research has limitations related to the sample size and the lack of generalizability to all refugee women. Results indicate the need to develop culturally tailored intervention programs to increase breast awareness and participation in breast-self-examination, clinical breast examination and mammography. The study has implications for health-care policy. Muslim Syrian refugee women need to be educated about BC upon arrival in Canada to counteract low participation rates, promote positive health outcomes and decrease potential costs to the health-care system. Originality/value Evidence on Muslim Syrian refugee women’s knowledge and beliefs on BC is sparse. This study addressed this gap by documenting a lack of knowledge and barriers to BCS among Muslim Syrian refugee 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".