Anxiety Levels Among Women Undergoing Mammogram Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among women around the world. In Saudi Arabia, breast cancer remains a challenging health problem which accounted for 31.7% of all cancer cases in Saudi females, with an age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) of 29.7 and an estimated death rate of 9.67 per 100,000 Saudi women in 2022. Early detection is confirmed to be the best practice for better prognosis. Mammography screening is one of the most effective methods of early detection. However, anxiety about mammogram screening may affect early detection. There is a lack of studies regarding the psychological impact, such as anxiety, on women who undergo mammogram screening in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess the level of anxiety and its contributing factors in women who undergo mammogram screening at Breast Cancer Screening Centers in Saudi Arabia. Design: A descriptive cross-sectional design was conducted. Setting: Mammogram clinics in East Jeddah Hospital and King Fahad Hospital. Sample: A convenience sample of 218 was collected. The data were collected from March 2023 to July 2023. Tools: The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) and the Psychological Consequence Questionnaire (PCQ). Result: Based on the PSWQ scale, the total mean of the anxiety level in our sample was mild anxiety (mean = 43.4, SD = 11.4). Based on the PCQ, the results demonstrated that physical, emotional, and social factors were significantly associated with the anxiety level, respectively (r = 0.4, p = 0.001; r = 0.489, p = 0.001; r = 0.337, p = 0.001). Conclusions and recommendations: Saudi women showed mild anxiety levels during mammogram screening. The physical, emotional, and social factors impact the anxiety level in women undergoing mammogram screening, which might explain the low rate of mammogram screening adherence in Saudi Arabia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".