Back

Multi-source coherence analysis of the first European multi-centre cohort study for cancer prevention in people experiencing homelessness: a data quality study

Blasco-Calafat, A.; Blanes-Selva, V.; Fragner, T.; Donate-Martinez, A.; Alhambra-Borras, T.; Garcia-Gomez, J. M.; Grabovac, I.; Saez, C.

2024-10-07 public and global health
10.1101/2024.10.07.24314994 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and objectivePeople experiencing homelessness (PEH) face significant health challenges and disparities in healthcare access due to barriers such as unstable housing, limited resources, and social stigma. In response, the European Union has initiated efforts to address these disparities. The CANCERLESS project, part of this initiative, has created the first European multi-centre dataset for cancer prevention in PEH. This work aims to evaluate and describe the heterogeneity of PEH across pilot sites and to provide data quality metrics for reliable future research. MethodsThe dataset comprises 652 cases: 142 from Vienna, 158 from Athens and Thessaloniki, 197 from Madrid, and 155 from the United Kingdom. All participants fit classifications from the European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion. This longitudinal study collected questionnaires at baseline, four weeks, and at the end of the intervention. The 180-question survey covered socio-demographic data, overall health, mental health, empowerment, and interpersonal communication. Data variability was assessed using information theory and geometric methods to analyse discrepancies in distributions and completeness across the dataset. ResultsSignificant variability was found among the four pilot countries, both overall and within specific sections, except for the health section. Madrid showed the largest discrepancies, with a high number of missing values related to interpersonal communication and healthcare service use. ConclusionHealth data may be comparable across the four countries, but further analysis should account for location-specific differences. This study underscores the heterogeneity among PEH and the critical need for data quality assessments to inform future research and policymaking in this field.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
22.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
14.2%
3
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.8%
6
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.0%
7
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
9
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
10
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
11
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
12
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
13
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
14
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
17
International Journal of Public Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
18
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
Age and Ageing
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 78%
0.6%
24
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
25
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%