Patterns of up-to-date status for colorectal cancer screening in Alberta: a cross-sectional study using survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces its mortality. We explored patterns of use of different CRC screening modalities and quantified the association between having a regular primary care provider and being up to date for CRC screening in a community-based population in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults between 50 and 74 years of age in Alberta, using Canadian Community Health Survey data (2015-2016). We defined being up to date for CRC screening as having completed a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within the previous 2 years, or having a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy in the previous 5 years before the survey. We analyzed data using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 4600 surveyed adults, 62.6% were up to date for CRC screening, with 45.1% having completed a FIT or FOBT (45.1%), and 34.1% having undergone a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. The adjusted odds ratio of being up to date for CRC screening was 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.17-0.38) and the absolute probability of being up to date for CRC screening was 34.4% lower for adults who had no regular primary care provider, compared with those who had. This pattern was observed in both male and female subgroups. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest a suboptimal uptake of CRC screening overall in Alberta, with high disparity between adults with and without a regular primary care provider. The use of customized, multicomponent intervention strategies that are shown to be effective in increasing participation in CRC screening may address this issue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".