MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3213217496 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v13n12p72

Demographic and Economic Predictors of Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening among Women in Isiolo County, Kenya

2021· article· en· W3213217496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Agnes Muthoni Linus, Anthony Wanyoro, Mary Muiruri Gitahi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidenceMedicineCervical cancerLogistic regressionCross-sectional studyCervical cancer screeningMultivariate analysisDemographyDescriptive statisticsCancerGynecologyGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the demographic and economic factors associated with cervical cancer screening among women in Isiolo County, Kenya. METHODOLOGY: A community based cross-sectional study. The study included 444 women aged 15-65 years drawn from six community units in Isiolo County. Multistage cluster sampling was used to draw a sample from the community units and household levels. Data was collected using a questionnaire administered by a research assistant. The questionnaire consisted of the demographic and economic factors associated with uptake of cervical cancer screening. Descriptive statistics, cross tabulations and multivariate logistic regressions were used in data analysis. FINDINGS: Among the 444 eligible women 81(18.2%) had ever been screened for cervical cancer. The significant determinants of screening included residence (OR=0.012, CI 95% [0.002-0.06] P-p<0.001); education (OR=0.31, CI 95% [0.107-0.895] p<0.05); Occupation (OR=0.142, CI 95% [0.031-0.66] P-Value=0.013); and perception by the respondents that screening is expensive (OR=0.112 CI 95% [0.04-0.309] P-Value<0.001). CONCLUSION: Uptake of cervical cancer screening at Isiolo county is significantly low. This study identified the demographic factors of screening as area of residence and education level. Occupation and the respondents’ opinion that screening is expensive were found to reduce chances of screening among the women. Many of the participants however expressed their willingness to be screened if the service was offered for free. Intensifying health education and community awareness is recommended to equip the women with accurate information regarding cervical cancer and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→