ArticleSSM - population health2025
Identifying intersectional groups at risk for missing breast cancer screening: Comparing regression- and decision tree-based approaches.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Utilization and Inequalities in Breast Cancer Early Detection Behaviors Among Women in Türkiye: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Understanding cancer screening participation patterns among first-generation migrants in Germany: a typology based on the intersections of hindering and facilitating factors.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- [Understanding and changing social disparities in health behaviour: nutrition as an interface between social inequality and health].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.