MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132974457

Understanding How the Lives and Experiences of South Asian Women Living in Ontario Shape Their Decisions Around Getting Screened for Cervical Cancer: A Concept Mapping Study

2024· dissertation· W7132974457 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Kimberly Devotta

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsCervical screeningThematic analysisSouth asiaCervical cancerEthnic groupReproductive healthQualitative researchService provider
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With timely screening, cervical cancer is largely preventable. However, certain subgroups of people with a cervix are disproportionately underscreened. In Ontario, Canada, South Asian women have some of the lowest rates of screening. Innovative approaches are needed to identify ways to address underscreening. In my dissertation, I sought to answer the research question: how do the lives and experiences of South Asian women living in Ontario shape their decisions around getting screened for cervical cancer? I used Concept Mapping to address three main objectives: 1) to identify the experiences in the lives of South Asian women living in Ontario that shape decisions to get screened for cervical cancer (paper 1); 2) to uncover similarities and differences amongst South Asian women (service users) and service providers in their perceptions of the importance and ease to address identified barriers to encourage cervical screening (paper 2); and 3) to identify and prioritize action items to encourage cervical screening amongst South Asian women to increase current screening rates. From September 2022 to August 2023, I recruited more than 70 participants to participate in: brainstorming, sorting, rating and map interpretation. Through sorting, six thematic clusters were identified amongst the 45 statements that came out of brainstorming: 1) Personal beliefs and misconceptions around cervical screening; 2) Education and knowledge issues around cervical cancer; 3) Cultural beliefs and influences specific to sexual health; 4) Barriers to prioritizing uptake of cervical screening; 5) System/infrastructure gaps or inadequacies; and 6) Lack of comfort and supportive relationships in healthcare. Through sub-group analysis, I uncovered differences such as South Asian service users valuing the importance of addressing ‘cultural beliefs and influences specific to sexual health’ more than service providers. Lastly, analysis of the rating data identified specific high priority areas of intervention, including education around cervical cancer, cervical screening, and preventative care, as well as having trusted sources of information. Additional areas identified as high importance but challenging to address were fear, stigma, norms and social relations. The findings demonstrate that multiple interventions that cross-cut multiple levels are needed, as culture, society, healthcare, and other larger structures influence individual actions.

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)0.005
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueTSpace→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→