ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025
What can we learn from an intersectionality-informed description of study participants? Results from the German National Cohort.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
39 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntersectionality has contributed to novel insights in epidemiology. However, participants of epidemiological studies have rarely been characterised from an intersectional perspective. We aimed to show the gained insights of an intersectionality-informed approach to describing a study population by comparing it to a conventional approach.
methodsWe used data of the German National Cohort (NAKO), which recruited 205,415 participants between 2014 and 2019. In the conventional approach, marginal proportions of educational level, cohabitation status, and country of birth were compared between the study populations of the NAKO and the German census survey (MZ) of 2014. In the intersectionality-informed approach, so-called intersectional population strata were constructed by cross-classifying educational level, cohabitation status, and country of birth. Proportions of these strata were also compared between NAKO and MZ. All analyses were stratified by sex and age group.
resultsThe conventional approach showed that the proportion of people with low education was lower in the NAKO compared to the MZ in all sex and age strata. Similarly, proportions of all intersectional population strata with low education were lower in the NAKO. Concerning cohabitation, the conventional approach showed that the proportion of those living without a partner was lower in the NAKO than in the MZ for women under 60 and men. The intersectionality-informed approach revealed that the proportions of some subgroups of those living without a partner were higher in the NAKO than in the MZ. These were intersectional population strata who lived without a partner, had a high level of education and were born in Germany. The intersectionality-informed approach revealed similar within-group heterogeneity for country of birth, showing that not all proportions of foreign-born people were lower in the NAKO compared to the MZ. Proportions of foreign-born with high education who lived with a partner were higher.
conclusionsOur results showed that heterogeneity within social categories can be revealed by applying the concept of intersectionality when comparing study participants with an external population. This way, an intersectionality-informed approach contributes to describing social complexity among study participants more precisely. Furthermore, results can be used to reduce participation barriers in a more targeted way.
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.