MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392858604 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0002554

The economic burden of cervical cancer on women in Uganda: Findings from a cross-sectional study conducted at two public cervical cancer clinics

2024· article· en· W4392858604 on OpenAlexafffund
Hallie Dau, Esther Nankya, Priscilla Naguti, Miriam Basemera, Beth A. Payne, Marianne Vidler, Joel Singer, Avery McNair, Maryam AboMoslim, Laurie Smith, Jackson Orem, Carolyn Nakisige, Gina Ogilvie

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlSt. Paul's HospitalWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCervical cancerMedicineCross-sectional studySocioeconomic statusReferralCancerDemographyGynecologyFamily medicinePopulationEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is limited research on how a cervical cancer diagnosis financially impacts women and their families in Uganda. This analysis aimed to describe the economic impact of cervical cancer treatment, including how it differs by socio-economic status (SES) in Uganda. We conducted a cross-sectional study from September 19, 2022 to January 17, 2023. Women were recruited from the Uganda Cancer Institute and Jinja Regional Referral Hospital, and were eligible if they were ≥ of 18 years and being treated for cervical cancer. Participants completed a survey that included questions about their out-of-pocket costs, unpaid labor, and family's economic situation. A wealth index was constructed to determine their SES. Descriptive statistics were reported. Of the 338 participants, 183 were from the lower SES. Women from the lower SES were significantly more likely to be older, have ≤ primary school education, and have a more advanced stage of cervical cancer. Over 90% of participants in both groups reported paying out-of-pocket for cervical cancer. Only 15 participants stopped treatment because they could not afford it. Women of a lower SES were significantly more likely to report borrowing money (higher SES n = 47, 30.5%; lower SES n = 84, 46.4%; p-value = 0.004) and selling possessions (higher SES n = 47, 30.5%; lower SES n = 90, 49.7%; p-value = 0.006) to pay for care. Both SES groups reported a decrease in the amount of time that they spent caring for their children since their cervical cancer diagnosis (higher SES n = 34, 31.2%; lower SES n = 36, 29.8%). Regardless of their SES, women in Uganda incur out-of-pocket costs related to their cervical cancer treatment. However, there are inequities as women from the lower SES groups were more likely to borrow funds to afford treatment. Alternative payment models and further economic support could help alleviate the financial burden of cervical cancer care in Uganda.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207