Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39759381›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2025

Identifying intersectional groups at risk for missing breast cancer screening: Comparing regression- and decision tree-based approaches.

Núria Pedrós Barnils, Benjamin Schüz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Núria Pedrós BarnilsInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Benjamin SchüzInstitute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malignant neoplasm of the breast was the fifth leading cause of death among women in Germany in 2020. To improve early detection, nationwide breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes for women 50-69 have been implemented since 2005. However, Germany has not reached the European benchmark of 70% participation, and socio-demographic inequalities persist. At the same time, challenges exist to identify groups of women at high risk for non-participation, since it is likely that this is due to disadvantages on multiple social dimensions. This study, therefore, aimed to identify intersectional groups of women at higher risk of not attending BCS by comparing two analytical strategies: a) evidence-informed regression and b) decision tree-based regression. Participants were drawn from the German 2019 European Health Interview Survey (N = 23,001; 21.6% response rate). Two logistic regressions using cross-classification intersectional groups based on relevant PROGRESS-Plus characteristics adjusted by age were built. The evidence-informed approach selected relevant variables based on the literature and the decision tree approach on the best-performing tree. The first identified low-income women born outside Germany, living in rural areas and not cohabiting with their partner at higher risk of never attending BCS (OR = 9.48, p = 0.002), whereas the second, based on a Classification and Regression Tree (61.91% balanced accuracy), determined widowed women living alone, with children, with a partner and children, or in other arrangements, and residing in specific federal states (i.e. Bavaria, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, or Saarland) (OR = 3.43, p < 0.001). Compared to the evidence-informed regression, the decision tree-based regression yielded higher discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 0.6726 vs AUC = 0.6618) and added relevant nuances in the identification of at-risk intersectional groups, going beyond known inequality dimensions and, therefore, helping the inclusion of under-studied populations in breast cancer screening.

Indexed as

Breast cancer screeningDecision treesGermanyHealth inequalitiesQuantitative intersectionality

Identifiers

PMID39759381
PMCPMC11699213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.