IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v365y2025ics0277953624010372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intersectional inequities in colorectal cancer screening attendance in Sweden: Using decision trees for intersectional matrix reduction

Author

Listed:
  • Pedrós Barnils, Núria
  • Gustafsson, Per E.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a significant health burden worldwide, with existing inequities in incidence and mortality. In Sweden, CRC screening programmes have varied regionally since the mid-2000s, but the significance of organised screening for counteracting complex inequities in screening attendance has not been investigated. This study aimed to assess patterns of inequities in lifetime CRC screening attendance in the Swedish population aged 60–69 years by identifying intersectional strata at higher risk of never attending CRC screening. The research question is answered using decision trees to reduce the complexity of a full intersectional matrix into a reduced intersectional matrix for risk estimation. Participants were drawn from the cross-sectional 2019 European Health Interview Survey (N = 9,757, response rate: 32.52%). The Conditional Inference Tree (CIT) (AUC = 0.7489, F-score = 0.7912, depth = 4, significance level = 0.05) identified region of residence (opportunistic vs organised screening), country of origin, gender, age and income as relevant variables in explaining lifetime CRC screening attendance in Sweden. Then, Poisson regression with robust standard errors estimated that EU-born women living in opportunistic screening regions belonging to the 2nd income quintile had the highest risk of never attending CRC screening (PR = 8.54, p < 0.001), followed by EU-born men living in opportunistic screening regions (PR = 7.41, p < 0.001) compared to the reference category (i.e. people aged 65–69 living in organised screening regions). In contrast, only age-related differences in attendance were found in regions with organised screening (i.e. people aged 60–64 living in regions with organised screening (PR = 2.01, p < 0.05)). The AUC of the reduced intersectional matrix model (0.7489) was higher than the full intersectional matrix model (0.6959) and slightly higher than the main effects model (0.7483), demonstrating intersectional effects of the reduced intersectional matrix compared with the main effects model and better discriminatory accuracy than the full intersectional matrix. In conclusion, regions with long-established organised CRC screening programmes display more limited socio-demographic inequities than regions with opportunistic CRC screening. This suggests that organised screening may be a crucial policy instrument to improve equity in CRC screening, which, in the long run, has the potential to prevent inequities in colorectal cancer mortality. Moreover, decision trees appear to be valuable statistical tools for efficient data-driven simplification of the analytical and empirical complexity that epidemiological intersectional analysis conventionally entails.

Suggested Citation

  • Pedrós Barnils, Núria & Gustafsson, Per E., 2025. "Intersectional inequities in colorectal cancer screening attendance in Sweden: Using decision trees for intersectional matrix reduction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 365(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:365:y:2025:i:c:s0277953624010372
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624010372
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117583?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:365:y:2025:i:c:s0277953624010372. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.