ArticlePreventive oncology & epidemiology2026
A Community Informed Geospatial Assessment of Breast Cancer Screening and Outreach Priorities in Kansas.
Article in Preventive oncology & epidemiology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Project BRA (Breast Cancer Risk Assessment), conducted in partnership with the Breast Cancer Health Equity Task Force, used a community-informed geospatial approach to evaluate inequities in breast cancer (BC) screening and incidence across the University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) catchment area, with the goal of informing risk-stratified, targeted outreach. Methods: County-level data were obtained from the OPTIK data warehouse, integrating Kansas Cancer Registry records, BRFSS indicators, and socioeconomic measures including poverty, median income, food desert prevalence, rurality, and insurance coverage. Outcomes included BC screening prevalence (2018-2022) and age-adjusted BC incidence rates (2014-2018). Multivariable logistic regression estimated adjusted odds of screening, with Geographically Weighted Binomial Logistic Regression (GWBLR) used to assess spatial heterogeneity. Incidence analyses used multivariable linear regression and Geographically Weighted Regression. Seven Kansas City-area counties were compared with the remaining catchment using χ Results: Screening proportions were highest in northeastern and north-central Kansas and lower in southern and southwestern counties. Rural counties had a slightly lower pooled screening proportion than urban counties (66.79% vs. 67.79%; 95% CI for difference: -1.27 to -0.73; p < 0.0001). In the multivariable model, lower screening odds were associated with rurality, food desert prevalence, smoking prevalence, and higher proportions of Black and Hispanic or Latino residents, while higher screening odds were associated with below-poverty percentage and uninsured percentage. The GWBLR showed spatial heterogeneity in screening-related associations. Among the seven focal counties, screening rates ranged from 62.7% to 72.5%, and all were below the 2021 national benchmark of 75.9%. Age-adjusted breast cancer incidence was lower in rural than urban counties (119.93 vs. 135.19 per 100,000 women; p = 0.0073), and five of the seven focal counties exceeded the national incidence benchmark of 130.8 per 100,000 women. Conclusion: BC screening disparities at the county level were more strongly associated with structural and contextual factors than with racial composition after adjustment; however, these findings should be interpreted as area-level associations and do not imply individual-level causation. Community-engaged geospatial analytics can identify high-need communities and guide equitable prevention and outreach strategies.
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.