MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6885991192 · doi:10.14288/1.0445542

Self-Screening for Cervical Cancer Offered through a Digital Platform in a Region of British Columbia with Lower Screening Rates

2024· article· en· W6885991192 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical cancerCervixAttendanceCervical screeningCervical cancer screeningCancer screeningCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical cancer is highly preventable through vaccination, early detection, and treatment, yet is the fourth most common cancer globally. HPV testing is superior to cytology for the detection of cervical pre-cancer, and jurisdictions around the world are implementing HPV primary screening, which offers the opportunity for self-screening, an important self-care intervention. Digital health solutions are also increasingly important components of self-care. In this study, we assessed the acceptability and completion of self-screening for cervical cancer offered through a digital platform within a low screening uptake region of British Columbia. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of self-screening for cervical cancer offered through a digital platform as measured by return rates of self-screening kits. Patients due or overdue for cervix screening were invited to participate. Eligible participants registered online to receive a self-screening kit, which included a device for vaginal self-screening, instructions, and a return envelope, sent to their home. After self-screening using the vaginal device, HPV testing was conducted. HPV-negative participants were returned to routine screening, and HPV-positive participants were recommended for cytology or colposcopy. Attendance rates at follow-up were evaluated. Participants were invited to complete an acceptability survey. From April 2019 to December 2023, 283 participants were sent kits, with 207 kits returned for a completion rate of 73%. Of valid samples (n = 202), 15 were HPV positive, and 93% attended follow-up care. Most respondents found the CervixCheck website easy to use, informative, and secure and were satisfied with receiving their results online. CervixCheck had a high completion rate among participants who were sent a self-screening kit. High compliance with recommended follow-up and high acceptability of self-screening for cervical cancer was observed. Most participants indicated they would self-screen again in the future. Innovative approaches to cervical screening, including self-screening and the use of digital health interventions, are ways to enhance equity and improve uptake of cervical screening.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207