Perceptions of breast cancer screening programs and breast health among immigrant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine how women who have emigrated from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region perceive breast cancer risk and screening in Canada and how they approach breast health, and to explore barriers to breast cancer screening in this population. DESIGN: Focused ethnography. SETTING: Edmonton, Alta. PARTICIPANTS: Women who were born in MENA countries (eg, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria) and had immigrated to Canada less than 5 years prior to study recruitment and lived in Edmonton, Alta. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted over a 6-week period in July and August 2018 with 6 participants in each group (N=36); results were analyzed thematically. MAIN FINDINGS: Three broad themes were identified: knowledge about breast health, cancer risk, and screening services; barriers to maintaining breast health and to screening; and potential solutions for overcoming these barriers. Findings indicated participants have limited knowledge about breast cancer screening practices in Alberta and that multiple barriers to screening remain. CONCLUSION: This study can help inform the development of culturally appropriate interventions to overcome barriers and to motivate women from MENA countries to use breast cancer screening.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".