Colorectal cancer screening among the public: knowledge, attitudes, and the perceived barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC)Footnote1 screening tests help in early detection of CRC and improve disease prognosis. This study aimed to assess knowledge, attitude, and barriers to CRC screening and the associated factors among the general population in Jordan. A validated self-administered online survey was distributed on 1542 individuals in Jordan. The participants (n = 1542) reported several barriers and demonstrated insufficient knowledge but positive attitude towards CRC screening. Older age (OR = 1.021, 95% CI = 1.010–1.032, P < 0.001), working in medical field (OR = 3.198, 95% CI = 2.499–4.092, P < 0.001), family history of cancer (OR = 1.248, 95% CI = 1.002–1.555, P < 0.05), and knowing someone with CRC (OR = 1.601, 95% CI = 1.186–2.161, P < 0.01) were significantly associated with higher knowledge. Personal history of CRC (OR = 3.157, 95% CI = 1.188–8.387, P < 0.05), and high knowledge of CRC (OR = 2.795, 95% CI = 2.242–3.484, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with the positive attitude. Future healthcare programs should devise effective techniques to improve public understanding and perception of CRC screening and overcome the identified barriers.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".