Perceptions of Inuit Women and Non-Inuit Healthcare Providers on the Implementation of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling as an Alternative Cervical Cancer Screening Method in Nunavik, Northern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling offers a cervical cancer (CC) screening alternative that can address certain barriers to the Papanicolaou test. As part of a larger community-based participatory project in Nunavik, Northern Québec, we travelled to two communities to gather perspectives from Inuit women and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on CC screening services and the possible implementation of HPV self-sampling. We held 10 group discussions with 28 Inuit women and 10 semi-structured interviews with 20 HCPs. The thematic analysis extracted themes reflecting one barrier and seven facilitators to accessing CC screening and the implementation of HPV self-sampling in Nunavik. Themes included, though not limited to, language and communication in health settings, access to culturally responsive educational resources on CC, and the noninvasive nature of HPV self-sampling. This study may serve to contribute to the co-development of a strategy for implementation that is designed according to the needs and priorities of the communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".