Acceptability of reminder letters for Papanicolaou tests:a survey of women from 23 Family Health Networks in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore women's perspectives on the acceptability and content of reminder letters from the family physician for Papanicolaou (Pap) test screening and the effect of reminder letters on compliance with screening recommendations. METHODS: A population-based survey was conducted in 23 Family Health Networks and Primary Care Networks participating in a demonstration project to increase the delivery of preventive services in Ontario. Questionnaires were mailed to randomly selected women aged 35 to 69 years who had received a reminder letter for a Pap test from their family physician within the previous six months. Two focus groups were conducted with a volunteer sample of respondents. RESULTS: The usable response rate was 54.3% (406/748). Two-thirds (65.8%, 267/406) of women who completed the survey recalled receiving the reminder letter. Overall, 52.3% (212/405) reported having a Pap test in the past six months. Among women who recalled the reminder letter and scheduled or had a Pap test, 71.4% (125/175) reported that the letter influenced their decision to be screened. The majority of respondents (80.8%, 328/406) wanted to continue to receive reminder letters for Pap tests from their physician, and 34.5% (140/406) wanted to receive additional information about cervical screening. Focus group interviews indicated that women who have had a Pap test may still be unsure about screening recommendations, what the test detects, and the rationale for follow-up procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Reminder letters in family practice were viewed as useful and influenced women's decisions to undergo Pap test screening. Women who have had a Pap test may still need additional information about the test.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".