MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083681958 · doi:10.22374/cjmrp.v23i1.13

Cervical Cancer Screening Experiences and Preferences for Midwives in Northern Ontario

2024· article· en· W7083681958 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical cancerCervical cancer screeningLogistic regressionDescriptive statisticsCervical screeningTest (biology)Health careCancer screening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored Northern Ontario women’s preferences regarding cervical cancer screening to improve service provision. Women in Northern Ontario completed a survey about their reproductive healthcare experiences. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression models determined whether residency, language, education, income, family physician, and preferring females for cervical screening are associated with preferring a midwife for cervical cancer screening. A total of 173 survey responses were analysed. Most participants followed provincial cervical cancer screening guidelines, with 86.6% indicating that their last Pap test was within three years, compared with the Ontario provincial rate of 64.9%. Liking one’s healthcare provider was the primary reason for complying with recommended guidelines. The most common reason for not complying was “too embarrassed or modest” to engage in this type of personal care. Most people access cervical cancer screening at their physician’s office (61.5%), but many (29.4%) would prefer this screening at a midwifery clinic. People with lower family incomes and those residing rurally without a family physician will most likely prefer a midwife for screening. The findings demonstrate interest among consumers in accessing cervical cancer screening in midwifery clinics. Rural people without family physicians and those with lower incomes may particularly benefit. RÉSUMÉCette étude s’est penchée sur les préférences des femmes du Nord de l’Ontario en matière de dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus, afin d’améliorer la prestation des services. Des femmes de cette région ont répondu à un sondage sur leur expérience des soins de santé génésique. Des statistiques descriptives et des modèles de régression logistique multivariée ont déterminé si le lieu de résidence, la langue, l’éducation, les revenus, le médecin de famille et la préférence pour la réalisation du dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus sont associés au choix du recours à une sage-femme pour cette intervention. En tout, 173 réponses ont été analysées. La plupart des participantes avaient suivi les lignes directrices provinciales relatives au dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus : 86,6 % des répondantes ont indiqué que leur dernier test Pap datait de moins de trois ans, par rapport au taux provincial de 64,9 % en Ontario. La sympathie envers sa fournisseuse ou son fournisseur de soins constituait la principale raison du respect des recommandations des lignes directrices. Comme explication de leur non-respect des directives, les répondantes ont le plus souvent indiqué qu’elles étaient « trop gênées ou trop pudiques » pour ce type de soins personnels. La plupart des gens subissent le dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus dans le cabinet de leur médecin (61,5 %), mais beaucoup (29,4 %) préféreraient la réalisation du test dans une clinique de sages-femmes. Les personnes au revenu familial plus faible et celles habitant des zones rurales sans médecin de famille sont les plus susceptibles de préférer une sage-femme pour le dépistage. Les constatations montrent que les consommatrices sont intéressées à subir le dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus dans des cliniques de sages-femmes. En particulier, les personnes rurales sans médecin de famille et les gens au revenu plus faible pourraient bénéficier d’un tel service.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Midwifery Research and PracticeSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207