MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403770445 · doi:10.1002/cam4.70021

Ethnic and racialized disparities in the use of screening services for pap smears and mammograms in Canada

2024· article· en· W4403770445 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bukola Salami, Cindy Z. Kalenga, Mary Olukotun, André M. N. Renzaho, Aloysius Nwabugo Maduforo, Jesús Serrano-Lomelin, Modupe Tunde‐Byass, Regine King, Solina Richter, Tehseen Ladha, Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan, Paul Bailey, Maria B. Ospina

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsBlack Coalition for AIDS PreventionUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioMammographyDemographyEthnic groupLogistic regressionPapanicolaou stainCervical cancerOddsCervical screeningBreast cancerHealth equityPap testGynecologyGerontologyCancerPublic healthCervical cancer screeningInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast and cervical cancers pose significant health challenges for women globally, emphasizing the critical importance of effective screening programs for early detection. In Canada, despite the implementation of accessible healthcare systems, ethnic and racialized disparities in cancer screening persist. This study aims to assess ethnic and racialized disparities in breast and cervical cancer screening in Canada. METHODS: Using 2015-2019 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, we analyzed women aged 18-70 in distinct ethnic and racial groups. The primary outcome was mammography or Papanicolaou test (pap smear). The secondary outcome was time since the last screening. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression to estimate the odds of having a pap smear or mammography across the ethnic and racialized groups, adjusted for relevant covariates. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 14,628,067 women of which 72.5% were White, 8.4% Southeast Asian, 4.7% South Asian, 3.4% Indigenous, 2.7% Black, 2.0% West Asian, and 1.6% Latin American. In comparison with the White reference group, a higher odds ratio of not having a pap smear was estimated for the West Asian (5.63; CI 3.85, 8.23), South Asian (5.19; CI 3.79, 7.12), Southeast Asian (4.35; CI 3.46, 5.46), and Black groups (2.62; CI 1.82, 3.78). Disparities in mammography screening were found only for the Southeast Asian group with higher odds of not having screening (1.85; CI 1.15, 2.98) compared to the White reference group. CONCLUSION: This study reveals significant disparities in pap smear and mammography screenings affecting various ethnic groups, particularly in West Asia, South Asian, and Black communities. These findings underscore the urgent need for targeted interventions, policies, and healthcare strategies to address these gaps and ensure equitable access to essential breast and cervical cancer prevention across all ethnicity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer MedicineSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207