WOMEN’S INTENTIONS TO RECEIVE CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING WITH PRIMARY HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS TESTING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored the potential impact of HPV testing on women’s intentions to be screened for cervical cancer in a cohort of Canadian women. Participants aged 25-65 from an ongoing trial were sent a questionnaire to assess women’s intentions to be screened for cervical cancer with HPV testing instead of Pap smears and to be screened every 4 years or after 25 years of age. We created scales for attitudes about HPV testing, perceived behavioural control and direct and indirect subjective norms. Demographic data and scales that were significantly different (p<0.1) between women who intended to be screened with HPV and those who did not intend were included in a stepwise logistic regression model. Of the 2016 invitations emailed, 1538 were received, and 981 completed surveys for a response rate of 63% (981/1538). Eighty-four percent of women (826/981) responded that they intended to attend for HPV-based cervical cancer screening, which decreased to 54.2% when the screening interval was extended, and decreased further to 51.4% when screening start was delayed to age 25. Predictors of intentions to undergo screening were attitudes (OR 1.22; 95%CI 1.15, 1.30), indirect subjective norms (OR 1.02; 95%CI 1.01, 1.03) and perceived behavioural control (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.10; 1.22). Intentions to be screened for cervical cancer with HPV testing decreased substantially when the screening interval was extended and screening started at age 25. Use of primary HPV testing may optimize the screening paradigm, but programs should ensure robust planning and education to mitigate any negative impact on screening attendance rates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".