The Effects of Cancer Beliefs and Sociodemographic Factors on Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviours in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigated the beliefs about cancer treatment, outcomes, and screening among adults aged 50−74 in Newfoundland and Labrador and whether these beliefs or sociodemographic factors were associated with differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behaviours. Methods: This analysis uses data collected from an online survey of adults on cancer awareness and prevention in NL. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in distributions of beliefs based on CRC screening behaviour. Logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic factors independently associated with CRC screening behaviour. Results: A total of 724 participants were included in the analysis, 57.4% of which had ever had CRC screening. Most held positive beliefs about cancer outcomes and treatment. Only beliefs about screening affected CRC screening behaviour. People who never had CRC screening were more likely to believe their worries about what might be found would prevent them from screening (χ2 = 9.380, p = 0.009); screening is only necessary if they have symptoms (χ2 = 15.680, p < 0.001); and screening has a high risk of leading to unnecessary surgery (χ2 = 6.824, p = 0.032). Regression identified that men had higher likelihood of having had CRC screening than women in our study (OR = 1.689, 95%CI = 1.135−2.515), as did all age groups compared to ages 50−54. No associations were found with the other sociodemographic factors studied. Conclusion: Beliefs about cancer screening appear to play some role in CRC screening behaviour, but the absolute effect was small. The relatively few sociodemographic associations with screening behaviour suggest that NL’s CRC screening program is equitably reaching people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".