MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405428686 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301059

Socio-economic factors associated with cancer stigma among apparently healthy women in two selected municipalities Nepal

2024· article· en· W4405428686 on OpenAlexaff
Bandana Paneru, Aerona Karmacharya, Soniya Makaju, Diksha Kafle, Lisasha Poudel, Sushmita Mali, Priyanka Timsina, Namuna Shrestha, Dinesh Timalsena, Kalpana Chaudhary, Niroj Bhandari, Prasanna Rai, Sunila Shakya, Donna Spiegelman, Sangini S. Sheth, Anne Stangl, McKenna C. Eastment, Archana Shrestha

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsCanadian Red Cross Society
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsStigma (botany)DemographyMedicinePopulationCross-sectional studyLikert scaleGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthPathologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is the primary cause of death globally, and despite the significant advancements in treatment and survival rates, it is still stigmatized in many parts of the world. However, there is limited public health research on cancer stigma among the general female population in Nepal. Therefore, this study aims to determine the prevalence of cancer stigma and its associated factors in this group. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 426 healthy women aged 30 to 60 years who were residents of Dhulikhel and Banepa in central Nepal. We measured cancer stigma using the Cancer Stigma Scale (CASS). CASS measures cancer stigma in six domains (awkwardness, avoidance, severity, personal responsibility, policy opposition, financial discrimination) on a 6-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to agree strongly) with higher mean stigma scores correlating with higher levels of stigma. We utilized Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with multivariable linear regression to identify the socio-demographic factors associated with the CASS score. RESULTS: Overall, the level of cancer stigma was low, with a mean stigma score of 2.6 (0.6), but it was still present among participants. Stigma related to personal responsibility had the highest levels, with a mean score of 3.9 (1.3), followed by severity with a mean score of 3.2 (1.3), and financial discrimination with a mean score of 2.9 (1.6). There was a significant association between the mean CASS score and older age (mean difference in stigma score: 0.11 points; 95% CI: 0.02-0.20) as well as lower education (difference: -0.02 points; 95% CI: -0.03 to -0.003), after adjusting for age, ethnicity, education, marital status, religion, occupation, and parity. CONCLUSION: While overall cancer stigma was low, some domains of stigma were higher among women in a suburban area in central Nepal; thus, indicating that cancer stigma persists in this region despite its low overall prevalence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→