MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308964610 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.42.11/12.04

Investigating reports of cancer clusters in Canada: a qualitative study of public health communication practices and investigation procedures

2022· article· en· W4308964610 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine E. Slavik, Niko Yiannakoulias

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisPublic healthAgency (philosophy)JurisdictionPublic relationsQualitative researchConsistency (knowledge bases)Cluster (spacecraft)MedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineNursingSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Public health officials provide an important public service responding to community concerns around cancer and often receive requests to investigate patterns of cancer incidence and communicate findings with citizens. In this study, we identified procedures Canadian public health officials followed when investigating reports of cancer clusters, and explored the challenges officials faced conducting risk communication with communities. Methods Thirteen interviews were administered by telephone with 15 officials across Canadian jurisdictions and analyzed using thematic analysis. A content analysis of procedural documents received from five provinces was also undertaken. Results A third of provinces/territories in this study did not use any consistent guidelines to investigate reports of cancer clusters, a third used their own guidelines and a third used guidelines from other countries. Each Canadian jurisdiction identified a different agency or individual responsible for investigating cluster inquiries. Officials in most interviews considered public education to be the primary objective of risk communication during an investigation. Officials in only 4 of 13 interviews cited an overall positive response from the public after investigating reports of a cancer cluster. Conclusion Differences in practices used to investigate suspected cancer clusters by public health officials were revealed in this work. Establishing pan-Canadian cancer cluster guidelines could improve procedural consistency across jurisdictions and offer enhanced opportunities to compare cluster responses for evaluation. A reporting system to track reported clusters may improve information sharing between federal, provincial/territorial and local investigators. During formal investigations, face-to-face participatory communication approaches should be explored to improve citizen engagement and manage community concerns.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0270.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in CanadaSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207