Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have assessed healthcare workers' understanding and use of a women's health approach (WHA) in practice, specifically with regards to cervical cancer treatment. Given the dominant biomedical approach, it is important for healthcare workers to be aware of, and feel capable of addressing the gender-specific needs of their patients. The purpose of this study was to assess healthcare workers' understanding of a WHA in a cervical cancer treatment centre in western Canada. Using a feminist case-study method, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine healthcare professionals of the multidisciplinary team, including: nursing, social work, medicine and radiation therapy. Findings from interviews indicate that healthcare workers did not use a WHA. Analysis brought forward three main barriers to the implementation of a WHA, which stimulated the creation of seven recommendations towards implementation of a comprehensive WHA. The goal of this paper is to disseminate research findings in a way that honours the contribution of the participants from the clinical milieu, and acknowledges the need for creativity, innovation and a 'rethinking' of care delivery for women with cervical cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".