Exploring Barriers to Mammography Access for Women With Intellectual Disabilities: A Meta‐Synthesis of the Perspectives of Four Stakeholder Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is as frequent in women with intellectual disabilities as the general population, but the mammography uptake rate for women with intellectual disabilities is almost a third lower. This meta-synthesis aimed to explore physical and psychosocial barriers to mammography access for women with intellectual disabilities from the perspectives of the women themselves, healthcare professionals, paid carers and family members. METHOD: A systematic search of six databases yielded 12 papers for thematic synthesis review. RESULTS: Three analytic themes were developed: (i) knowing what to expect; (ii) knowing who will assume responsibility and (iii) making adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Mammography screening elicits anxiety from both women with intellectual disabilities and their supporters (whether paid, family or healthcare professional). A formulation-based approach to mammography attendance may help to provide tailored information to women with intellectual disabilities, whilst easing the pressures placed upon their support network and healthcare professionals.
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 | 0.040 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".