MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6991726682

Income, Patient Enrolment Model and Cervical Cancer screening uptake within the Central East Local Health Integration Network

2018· dissertation· en· W6991726682 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationLogistic regressionCervical cancerSocioeconomic statusCancer screening
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical cancer screening detects cancer at early stages and is available to Ontario women ages 21 to 69 years of age. Notwithstanding cancer screening initiatives, sub-groups of Ontario women are under-screened based on current literature. The most common primary health care delivery system in Ontario are patient enrolment models (PEMs) which allows for physician-incentives when rostering and cancer screening benchmarks are met. Notwithstanding, little is known about the effect of PEM enrolment and other socioeconomic (SES) factors, such as income, on screening uptake. This study considered differences in cervical screening uptake by PEM status and neighbourhood income levels by women residing in the Central East Local Health Integration Network (CELHIN). A descriptive, comparative study using record level, administrative data from Cancer Care Ontario of eligible CELHIN women between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2015 was conducted (N=490, 574). The variables of interest were cervical screening uptake (dependent variable), PEM status (primary exposure variable), neighbourhood income quintile (independent variable) and controlled for age and rurality. Using logistic regression, it was determined non-enrolled women were more likely not to be screened (OR =6.98, 95% CI, 6.87-7.08) compared to enrolled women, representing the strongest association. Given heterogeneous effects in odds ratios, multivariate stratified logistic regression analyses were undertaken for PEM enrolled and non-enrolled women separately. A significant association was found between older, non-enrolled women (ages 60-69) and not being screened (OR=1.87, 95% CI, 1.78-1.96). Unexpectedly, enrolled women in the lowest neighbourhood income quintile were more likely to not be screened (OR=1.49, 95% CI, 1.46-1.53) compared to their non-enrolled counterparts (OR=1.20, 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Urban dwellers were slightly less likely to be screened (enrolled women: OR=1.10, 95% CI, 1.07-1.12; non-enrolled women, OR=1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) relative to rural women. As older women have the greatest risk of high-grade invasive cervical cancer and PEM status is not protective for women living in lower SES, the priority for the CELHIN should be addressing barriers to cervical screening uptake, regardless of PEM status, for marginalized at-risk women including older women, and women living in lower SES environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→