In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Lynne Forrest and colleagues find that patients with lung cancer who are more socioeconomically deprived are less likely to receive surgical treatment, chemotherapy, or any type of treatment combined, compared with patients who are more socioeconomically well off, regardless of cancer stage or type of health care system.

Cancer diagnosis at an early stage increases the chance of curative treatment and of survival. It has been suggested that delays on the pathway from first symptom to diagnosis and treatment may be socio-economically patterned, and contribute to socio-economic differences in receipt of treatment and in cancer survival.This review aimed to assess the published evidence for socio-economic inequalities in stage at diagnosis of lung cancer, and in the length of time spent on the lung cancer pathway. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched to locate cohort studies of adults with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer, where the outcome was stage at diagnosis or the length of time spent within an interval on the care pathway, or a suitable proxy measure, analysed according to a measure of socio-economic position. Meta-analysis was undertaken when there were studies available with suitable data.Of the 461 records screened, 39 papers were included in the review (20 from the UK) and seven in a final meta-analysis for stage at diagnosis. There was no evidence of socio-economic inequalities in late stage at diagnosis in the most, compared to the least, deprived group (odds ratio=1.04, 95%Correspondence to Dr Lynne Forrest, Administrative Data Research Centre Scotland, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Bioquarter, 9 Little France Road, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK Lynne.Forrest@ed.ac.uk tel +44 131 651 7844. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42014007145 Competing InterestsWe declare that we have no competing interests. Authors' ContributionsLF: conception and design, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing and final approval of the manuscript. JA, MW, GR: design, critical revision and final approval of the manuscript. SS: design, data collection and analysis, critical revision and final approval of the manuscript. Europe PMC Funders GroupAuthor Manuscript Thorax. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.Published in final edited form as: Thorax. 2017 May ; 72(5): 430-436. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016 Europe PMC Funders Author ManuscriptsEurope PMC Funders Author Manuscripts confidence interval = 0.92 to 1.19). No socio-economic inequalities in the patient interval or in time from diagnosis to treatment were found.Socio-economic inequalities in stage at diagnosis are thought to be an important explanatory factor for survival inequalities in cancer. However, socio-economic inequalities in stage at diagnosis were not found in a meta-analysis for lung cancer.

No abstract

Background:The NHS Cancer Plan for England set waiting time targets for cancer referral (14 days from GP referral to first hospital appointment) and treatment (31 days from diagnosis, 62 days from urgent GP referral). Interim diagnostic intervals can also be calculated. The factors that influence timely post-primary care referral, diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer are not known.Methods:Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and lung cancer audit data sets were linked. Logistic regression was used to investigate the factors (socioeconomic position, age, sex, histology, co-morbidity, year of diagnosis, stage and performance status (PS)) that may influence the likelihood of referral, diagnosis and treatment within target, for 28 733 lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2006–2010.Results:Late-stage, poor PS and small-cell histology were associated with a higher likelihood of post-primary care referral, diagnosis and treatment within target. Older patients were significantly less likely to receive treatment within the 31-day (odds ratio (OR)=0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–0.91) and 62-day target (OR=0.80, 95% CI 0.67–0.95) compared with younger patients.Conclusions:Older patients waited longer for treatment and this may be unjustified. Patients who appeared ill were referred, diagnosed and treated more quickly and this ‘sicker quicker' effect may cancel out system socioeconomic inequalities that might result in longer time intervals for more deprived patients.

BackgroundIt has been suggested that social, educational, cultural and physical factors in childhood and early adulthood may influence the chances and direction of social mobility, the movement of an individual between social classes over his/her life-course. This study examined the association of such factors with intra-generational and inter-generational social mobility within the Newcastle Thousand Families 1947 birth cohort.MethodsMultivariable logistic regression was used to examine the potential association of sex, housing conditions at age 5 years, childhood IQ, achieved education level, adult height and adverse events in early childhood with upward and downward social mobility.ResultsChildhood IQ and achieved education level were significantly and independently associated with upward mobility between the ages of 5 and 49-51 years. Only education was significantly associated (positively) with upward social mobility between 5 and 25 years, and only childhood IQ (again positively) with upward social mobility between 25 and 49-51 years. Childhood IQ was significantly negatively associated with downward social mobility. Adult height, childhood housing conditions, adverse events in childhood and sex were not significant determinants of upward or downward social mobility in this cohort.ConclusionsAs upward social mobility has been associated with better health as well as more general benefits to society, supportive measures to improve childhood circumstances that could result in increased IQ and educational attainment may have long-term population health and wellbeing benefits.

BackgroundOlder people experience poorer outcomes from colon cancer. We examined if treatment for colon cancer was related to age and if inequalities changed over time.MethodsData from the UK population-based Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry on 31 910 incident colon cancers (ICD10 C18) diagnosed between 1999–2010 were obtained. Likelihood of receipt of: (1) cancer-directed surgery, (2) chemotherapy in surgical patients, (3) chemotherapy in non-surgical patients by age, adjusting for sex, area deprivation, cancer stage, comorbidity and period of diagnosis, was examined.ResultsAge-related inequalities in treatment exist after adjustment for confounding factors. Patients aged 60– 69, 70–79 and 80+ years were significantly less likely to receive surgery than those aged <60 years (multivariable ORs (95% CI) 0.84(0.74 to 0.95), 0.54(0.48 to 0.61) and 0.19(0.17 to 0.21), respectively). Age-related differences in receipt of surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (but not chemotherapy in non-surgical patients) narrowed over time for the ’younger old’ (aged <80 years) but did not diminish for the oldest patients.ConclusionsAge inequality in treatment of colon cancer remains after adjustment for confounders, suggesting age remains a major factor in treatment decisions. Research is needed to better understand the cancer treatment decision-making process, and how to influence this, for older patients.

BackgroundWith increasing financial pressures on public health in England, the need for evidence of high relevance to policy is now stronger than ever. However, the ways in which public health professionals (PHPs) and researchers relate to one another are not necessarily conducive to effective knowledge translation. This study explores the perspectives of PHPs and researchers when interacting, with a view to identifying barriers to and opportunities for developing practice that is effectively informed by research.MethodsThis research focused on examples from two responsive research schemes, which provide university-based support for research-related enquiries from PHPs: the NIHR SPHR Public Health Practitioner Evaluation Scheme1 and the responsive research service AskFuse2. We examined enquiries that were submitted to both between 2013 and 2015, and purposively selected eight enquiries for further investigation by interviewing the PHPs and researchers involved in these requests. We also identified individuals who were eligible to make requests to the schemes but chose not to do so. In-depth interviews were conducted with six people in relation to the PHPES scheme, and 12 in relation to AskFuse. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Verification and extension of the findings were sought in a stakeholder workshop.ResultsPHPs recognised the importance of research findings for informing their practice. However, they identified three main barriers when trying to engage with researchers: 1) differences in timescales; 2) limited budgets; and 3) difficulties in identifying appropriate researchers. The two responsive schemes addressed some of these barriers, particularly finding the right researchers to work with and securing funding for local evaluations. The schemes also supported the development of new types of evidence. However, other barriers remained, such as differences in timescales and the resources needed to scale-up research.ConclusionsAn increased mutual awareness of the structures and challenges under which PHPs and researchers work is required. Opportunities for frequent and meaningful engagement between PHPs and researchers can help to overcome additional barriers to co-production of evidence. Collaborative models, such as the use of researchers embedded in practice might facilitate this; however, flexible research funding schemes are needed to support these models.

Background:Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer treatment may reduce survival inequalities. However, the reasons for treatment variation are unclear.Methods:Northern and Yorkshire cancer registry, Hospital Episode Statistics and lung cancer audit data sets were linked. Logistic regression was used to explore the role of stage, histology, performance status and comorbidity in socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer treatment, for 28 733 lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2006–2010, and in a subgroup with stage recorded (n=7769, 27%).Results:Likelihood of receiving surgery was significantly lower in the most deprived group (odds ratio (OR)=0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.86); however, the OR was attenuated when including histological subtype (OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.71–0.96). Patients in the most deprived group were significantly less likely to receive chemotherapy in the fully adjusted full cohort model including performance status (OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.58–0.72) but not in the staged subgroup model when performance status was included (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.72–1.08). Socioeconomic inequalities in radiotherapy were not found.Interpretation:Socioeconomic inequalities in performance status statistically explained socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of chemotherapy in the selective staged subgroup, but not in the full cohort. Socioeconomic variation in histological subtype may account for some of the socioeconomic inequalities in surgery.