Age, socio-economic status and survival from cancer of cervix in the West of Scotland 1980-87

Lamont, D. W.; Symonds, R.P.; Brodie, M. M.; Nwabineli, N. J.; Gillis, C.R.

doi:10.1038/bjc.1993.64

Cited by 30 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Significant social gradients, with or without control for stage, have been reported for lung (Mackillop et al 1997;Schrijvers et al 1995a), prostate (Dayal et al 1985;Mackillop et al 1997), bladder (Auvinen et al 1995;Mackillop et al 1997), stomach (Auvinen et al 1995), malignant melanoma (Geller et al 1996), cervix (Auvinen et al 1995;Mackillop et al 1997), uterus (Auvinen et al 1995;Mackillop et al 1997;Steinhorn et al 1986), ovaries (Auvinen et al 1995), and pancreas (Kogevinas et al 1991;Mackillop et al 1997). On the other hand, other authors have not been able to discern any effect, at least not net of stage, for lung (Auvinen et al 1995; apparently also Bonett et al 1994), prostate (Kogevinas et al 1991), stomach (Mackillop et al 1997;Schrijvers et al 1995a), ovaries (Mackillop et al 1997), leukemia (Kogevinas et al 1991), and cervix (Kogevinas et al 1991; apparently also Lamont et al 1993). …”

Section: A Brief Review Of the Current State Of Knowledge Empirical Pmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…There is much empirical evidence for a social effect operating through stage. Some authors have found that a relationship between socioeconomic status and survival virtually disappears when it is controlled for stage (e.g., Lamont et al (1993) for cervical cancer), or that as much as, say, half of it is explained (Auvinen (1992) for colorectal cancer). As is elaborated on in a subsequent section, it is not difficult to imagine also host factors or treatment as responsible for the social gradients in survival, but there is very little empirical evidence for this.…”

Section: Suggested Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social inequalities in cancer survival

Kravdal¹

2000

Population Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may ABSTRACTSocial differentials in survival from 12 common types of cancer were assessed by estimating a mixed additive-multiplicative hazard model on the basis of individual register and census data for the whole Norwegian population. The excess all-cause mortality among cancer patients compared with similar persons without a cancer diagnosis was significantly related to education, occupation and income. It was, on the whole, about 15% lower for men or women who had completed a post-secondary education than for those with only compulsory schooling, taking age, period and registered differences in tumor characteristics and stage at the time of diagnosis into account. The data do not provide clear indications of whether differences in host factors, such as co-morbities and immune functions, or differences in treatment and care are primarily responsible for these inequalities in cancer survival. 3The persistently wide gaps in life expectancy between rich and relatively poor citizens in the industrialized world, even within the supposedly egalitarian Nordic countries, are well documented (e.g., Marmot 1995;Valkonen 1989;Vågerö and Lundberg 1995). Although affluence certainly also takes its toll, it is the material deprivation and various kinds of behaviour prevalent in the lower social classes that -in addition to being important concerns themselvesare the most severe threats to a long and healthy life. This situation can be hard to accept from a human rights perspective where equal opportunities in a wide sense is a key ingredient. A reduction of the social differentials in mortality has therefore also been proclaimed by the European region of the World Health Organization (WHO 1985) as one of the major health challenges. Appropriate interventions require, of course, an accurate description of these differentials, as well as a more profound knowledge of their determinants.In industrialized countries, cardiovascular disease and cancer are now the dominant causes of death, with the former being more than twice as common as the latter. Death rates from cardiovascular diseases have declined in Norway over the last few decades for both sexes, because of both prevention and treatment. Total cancer mortality (i.e., death rates from all types of cancer pooled) for men was on the upturn during the 1970s and 1980s, however.The incidence has, with few exceptions (e.g., stomach cancer), increased considerably, while there have been...

show abstract

Section: A Brief Review Of the Current State Of Knowledge Empirical Pmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Suggested Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social inequalities in cancer survival

Kravdal¹

2000

Population Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For cervical cancer, however, the results from three UK studies are consistent, although in the analysis of one study adjustment was made for many variables, 15 while in two other studies this was not the case. '2'4 It is important to know, as we noted in the introduction, whether socioeconomic differences in cancer mortality are mainly caused by incidence or survival differentials.…”

Section: Colon Cancermentioning

confidence: 91%

Cancer patient survival by socioeconomic status in seven countries: a review for six common cancer sites [corrected]

Schrijvers¹,

Mackenbach²

1994

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hospital based studies were excluded because cancer patients treated in specific hospitals may not be representative of cancer patients in the general population. In particular, socioeconomic contrast may be larger in the general population than in a hospital population.Studies covering fewer than five years of follow up were excluded, because for many cancers survival differences may not yet be apparent shortly after diagnosis.Three measures of socioeconomic status were considered to be unfit for our purpose. Studies using race as a measure were excluded, because it is difficult to separate the impact of socioeconomic status and other race related factors on survival. Studies that used hospital type or insurance status as a measure were also excluded, as we consider both variables to be intermediary in the socioeconomic status-survival association.Studies that reported on fewer than 200 cancer deaths were excluded from this review. This number of events is the minimum needed to indicate a relative risk (RR) of dying of 1-5 when two socioeconomic groups with equal numbers are compared (with oa= 0 05 and 1B= 0 20).3Cancer sites for which fewer than three papers on socioeconomic status and survival were available were not considered in this review.

show abstract

“…Although there is evidence that patients with cancer from deprived communities in Scotland might present with more advanced disease,1 – 3 this finding has not been replicated in every study 4. Using data from four population based audits, we investigated whether there is any relation between socioeconomic status and tumour stage at presentation in patients with breast, colorectal, ovarian, and lung cancer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relation between socioeconomic status and tumour stage in patients with breast, colorectal, ovarian, and lung cancer: results from four national, population based studies

Brewster¹

2001

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age, socio-economic status and survival from cancer of cervix in the West of Scotland 1980-87

Cited by 30 publications

References 22 publications

Social inequalities in cancer survival

Social inequalities in cancer survival

Cancer patient survival by socioeconomic status in seven countries: a review for six common cancer sites [corrected]

Relation between socioeconomic status and tumour stage in patients with breast, colorectal, ovarian, and lung cancer: results from four national, population based studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About