An exploration of primary care provider perspectives on mammography screening research and decision-making with average-risk women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Growing evidence nuancing the benefits and harms of mammography screening has put systematic screening into question.Given the responsibility of primary care providers in counseling women in mammography decision-making, it is important to understand their thoughts on this process.Understanding primary care providers' perspectives on clinical research on mammography will also help inform future best practices as guidelines evolve.Objective: 1) To explore the perspectives and approaches of primary care providers with respect to mammography decision-making with average-risk women, and 2) To explore physician perspectives on evidence-based research synopses on mammography for average-risk women and how they may apply this information in practice.Design: Critical interpretive review and dynamic cohort study.Methods: First, a critical interpretive review was conducted, using an interpretive descriptive analytical framework that drew on primary care providers' codes of ethics.Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and PsycInfo databases were searched from 2002 to 2018.Following an inductive analysis of the data extracted from the included articles, resulting themes were subjected to an interpretative descriptive analysis.Second, the Essential Evidence Plus database was searched to identify POEMs (Patient Oriented Evidence that Matters TM ), clinical research summaries on mammography evidence.Using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), physician ratings and comments about mammography evidence were extracted from reflections on the POEMs.Quantitative data were assessed with descriptive statistics; qualitative data were summarized and assessed iteratively and thematically.Connections were sought between both sources of data.Results: This thesis revealed that physicians hold a wide range of perspectives and practice patterns and perspectives regarding mammography screening for average-risk women.Primary care providers greatly differed in terms of their beliefs in 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".