Cancer-related care for rural and remote populations in Canada: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Synthesizing unique barriers to cancer-related care among rural and remote populations would be useful to inform future research and health service priorities. To fill this gap, the overall goal of this review is to synthesize the cancer literature about those living in rural and remote locations in Canada. Methods: Using JBI scoping review methods, we extracted the following: definition of rural or remote; phase of cancer care continuum (screening, diagnosis, treatment/care, post-treatment, outcomes); province( s) and/or territory(ies) of the sample; and cancer diagnosis(es). Results: Within the 45 studies, definitions of rural and remote varied widely. The treatment/care phase was most often reflected (n = 18) followed by screening (n = 12). All provinces were represented and data from the Yukon Territory was lacking. Breast and colorectal cancer diagnoses were most common (n = 20 and n = 18, respectively) and most studies (n = 31) used quantitative designs. Conclusion: Review results illuminate the state of cancer-related research of rural and remote populations across Canada and highlight implications for further examination.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".