MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366393930 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066005

Primary care provider interventions for addressing cancer screening participation with marginalised patients: a scoping review protocol

2023· review· en· W4366393930 on OpenAlexafffund
Arlinda Ruco, Alexandra Cernat, Sabine Calleja, Jill Tinmouth, Aïsha Lofters

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreBeatrice Hunter Cancer Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityWomen's College HospitalSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen's College Hospital
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLPsychological interventionMEDLINEFamily medicineChecklistSystematic reviewData extractionInclusion (mineral)Health careNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cancer screening is an integral component of primary care, and providers can play a key role in facilitating screening. While much work has focused on patient interventions, there has been less attention on primary care provider (PCP) interventions. In addition, marginalised patients experience disparities in cancer screening which are likely to worsen if not addressed. The objective of this scoping review is to report on the range, extent and nature of PCP interventions that maximise cancer screening participation among marginalised patients. Our review will target cancers where there is strong evidence to support screening, including lung, cervical, breast and colorectal cancers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: . Comprehensive searches will be conducted by a health sciences librarian using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Complete and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include peer-reviewed English language literature published from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2022 that describes PCP interventions to maximise cancer screening participation for breast, cervical, lung and colorectal cancers. Two independent reviewers will screen all articles and identify eligible studies for inclusion in two stages: title and abstract, then full text. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Charted data will be synthesised through a narrative synthesis using a piloted data extraction form informed by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this is a synthesis of digitally published literature, no ethics approval is needed for this work. We will target appropriate primary care or cancer screening journals and conference presentations to publish and disseminate the results of this scoping review. The results will also be used to inform an ongoing research study developing PCP interventions for addressing cancer screening with marginalised patients.

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.012
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.016

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 head0.666
GPT teacher head0.637
Teacher spread0.029 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→