Self-Rated Health and Colorectal Cancer Screening Intentions and Behaviours among U.S. Men (aged 45-75)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Our study examined the relationship between self-rated health (SRH) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intention and behaviors among United States men aged 45 to 75 years. In addition, we assessed whether educational attainment modified these relationships and the presence of an intention–behavior gap. Methods: Using data from a 2022 cross-sectional survey ( n = 501), we assessed CRC screening intentions, history, and current status. Multivariable logistic regression models explored associations between SRH and the outcomes of interest, adjusting for confounding. Results were stratified by educational attainment to examine potential effect modification. Cochran's Q test and McNemar's tests evaluated differences and discordance among outcomes. Results: While most participants planned to undergo CRC screening (82.2%) and had been screened before (65.9%), fewer than half (44.9%) were up to date with screening. Good or better SRH was associated with higher odds of planning to get screened (aOR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.01, 2.97). The relationships between SRH and screening behaviours were not statistically significant. We found limited evidence that educational attainment modified these relationships. There was significant heterogeneity among the outcomes ( p < 0.0001). The only characteristic associated with discordance between intention and participation was age ( p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Men with positive SRH are more likely to intend to undergo CRC screening; however, this intention often does not translate into action. Future research should meticulously investigate barriers preventing men from following through with CRC early-detection screening efforts .
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".