MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407609035 · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12392-7

Integrated access to cancer screening: expanding access for cervical and colorectal cancer screening in rural and remote Northern Alberta, Canada using a mobile service to bring cancer screening closer to home

2025· article· en· W4407609035 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jessica Wiseman, Kara K. Patterson, Gordon Kliewer, Mary Mueller, Seema Mutti-Packer, James F. Newsome, Stacy Lockerbie, Joan Hauber, Monica Schwann, Huiming Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsMedicineNursing researchCervical cancerHealth informaticsCancerColorectal cancerHealth administrationService (business)Cervical cancer screeningCancer screeningPublic healthFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The goal of the Integrated Access to Cancer Screening (IACS) initiative was to help reduce the disparity in cancer screening participation across Alberta by implementing an integrated mobile service delivery model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in rural and remote communities in Northern Alberta, performed by Nurse Practitioners (NPs) that addressed barriers to access. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and impact the IACS initiative had on the communities and residents of Northern Alberta. This article describes the initiative design, implementation, outcomes, and impact of the initiative. METHODS: The IACS model was implemented in a total of 36 visited communities in Northern Alberta from December 2020 to December 2021. The impact of the IACS initiative was measured using a mixed methods approach. The participation rate, cancer screening overdue status, and connection to a PCP were assessed using quantitative data collected through the existing clinical information system. Patient and provider feedback were collected from opened-ended surveys, and all data was analyzed by the research team. This study evaluated the impact the IACS initiative had on patient cancer screening participation and cancer screening knowledge, addressing known barriers to service delivery in rural and remote Northern Alberta, and to understand how this service might be sustained for future operation. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-three people participated in screening offered through the IACS initiative. 99% of Pap screenings offered to patients were accepted, and 98% of FIT kits were accepted from the NPs, with a completion rate of 84%. The clinical data and survey responses from patients and providers indicated support for sustaining the IACS initiative. The IACS model of screening was favoured by most female patients. It also increased screening uptake in the communities we visited in the North Zone of Alberta, where screening rates are low. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight that the IACS initiative was well-received and brought value to underserved communities in Northern Alberta. The IACS model effectively facilitated screening for those who were overdue or have never been screened before. The reach of the IACS model was broader than anticipated, with those who are attached to a PCP also finding the integrated mobile screening model beneficial, bringing the services closer to home.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207