Pedrós Barnils Núria, Schüz Benjamin
Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
SSM Popul Health. 2024 Dec 9;29:101736. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2024.101736. eCollection 2025 Mar.
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.
2020年,乳腺癌是德国女性的第五大死因。为了改善早期检测,自2005年以来,德国实施了针对50至69岁女性的全国性乳腺癌筛查(BCS)计划。然而,德国尚未达到70%的参与率这一欧洲基准,社会人口不平等现象依然存在。与此同时,识别不参与筛查的高风险女性群体存在挑战,因为这很可能是由于多个社会层面的不利因素导致的。因此,本研究旨在通过比较两种分析策略,识别未参加BCS风险较高的女性交叉群体:a)基于证据的回归分析和b)基于决策树的回归分析。参与者来自德国2019年欧洲健康访谈调查(N = 23,001;回复率21.6%)。构建了两个逻辑回归模型,使用基于相关PROGRESS-Plus特征并按年龄调整的交叉分类交叉群体。基于证据的方法根据文献选择相关变量,而决策树方法则基于性能最佳的树进行选择。第一种方法确定出生在德国境外、生活在农村地区且未与伴侣同居的低收入女性从未参加BCS的风险较高(OR = 9.48,p = 0.002),而第二种方法基于分类与回归树(平衡准确率61.91%),确定独居、有子女、有伴侣和子女或其他家庭安排且居住在特定联邦州(即巴伐利亚州、勃兰登堡州、不来梅州、汉堡市或萨尔兰州)的寡妇(OR = 3.43,p < 0.001)。与基于证据的回归分析相比,基于决策树的回归分析具有更高的判别准确性(AUC = 0.6726 vs AUC = 0.6618),并在识别高风险交叉群体时增加了相关细微差别,超越了已知的不平等维度,因此有助于将研究不足的人群纳入乳腺癌筛查。