Care in the Community: Opportunities to improve cancer screening uptake for people living with low income
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite organized provincial cancer screening programs, people living with low income consistently have lower rates of screening in Ontario, Canada than their more socioeconomically advantaged peers. We previously published results of a two-phase, exploratory qualitative study involving both interviews and focus groups whose objective was to integrate knowledge of people living with low income on how to improve primary care strategies aimed at increasing cancer screening uptake. In the current paper, we report previously unpublished findings from that study that identify how taking a community outreach approach in primary care may lead to increased cancer screening uptake among people living with low income. Participants told us that they saw value in a community outreach approach to cancer screening. They recommended specific actionable approaches, in particular, mobile community-based screening and community information sessions, and recommended taking an ethno-specific lens depending on the communities being targeted. Participants expressed a desire for primary care providers to go out into the community to learn more about the whole patient, such as could be achieved with home visits, but they simultaneously believed that this may be challenging in urban settings and in the context of perceived physician shortages. Models of primary care that provide support to an entire local community and provide some of their services directly in that community may have a meaningful impact on cancer screening for socially marginalized groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".