Economic differentials in cancer survival: A multivariate analysis

Chirikos, Thomas N.; Reiches, Nancy A.; Moeschberger, Melvin L.

doi:10.1016/0021-9681(84)90146-2

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have suggested either that socioeconomic status has no effect at all,2 or that it contributes to survival more than that of early or better treatment.23 24 Chirikos, trying to assess the simultaneous effects of various factors on survival, made the interesting observation that the effect of socioeconomic status on survival was of particular importance in an earlier stage of tumour development. 25 If this is the case, discovering a host factor mediated effect of socioeconomic status may be conditional on the possibility ofearly diagnosis ofthat cancer. This seems to be a hypothesis that should be further explored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer survival and social class in Sweden.

Vågerö

Persson

1987

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer survival and social class in Sweden.

Vågerö

Persson

1987

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, in those who survive acute coronary events, SES appears to be related to postevent functioning as measured by return to work. [85][86][87][88][89][90] Trends in the Association Between Social Class and Cardiovascular Disease The inverse relation between SES and cardiovascular disease is now commonly accepted, but it has not always been the case that cardiovascular rates were higher in the poor. William Osler described angina pectoris as being an affliction of the better-off.5 Studies conducted in the 1930s and 1940s in the United States and the United Kingdom confirmed higher rates of coronary heart disease in men from higher-SES groups.91 Between the 1940s and 1960s, there was a reversal in this pattern for men.…”

Section: Survival and Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic factors and cardiovascular disease: a review of the literature.

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite recent declines in mortality, cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the United States today. It appears that many of the major risk factors for coronary disease have been identified. Researchers are still learning about different modifiable factors that may influence cardiovascular diseases. Socioeconomic status may provide a new focus. The principal measures of SES have been education, occupation, and income or combinations of these. Education has been the most frequent measure because it does not usually change (as occupation or income might) after young adulthood, information about education can be obtained easily, and it is unlikely that poor health in adulthood influences level of education. However, other measures of SES have merit, and the most informative strategy would incorporate multiple indicators of SES. A variety of psychosocial measures--for example, certain aspects of occupational status--may be important mediators of SES and disease. The hypothesis that high job strain may adversely affect health status has a rational basis and is supported by evidence from a limited number of studies. There is a considerable body of evidence for a relation between socioeconomic factors and all-cause mortality. These findings have been replicated repeatedly for 80 years across measures of socioeconomic level and in geographically diverse populations. During 40 years of study there has been a consistent inverse relation between cardiovascular disease, primarily coronary heart disease, and many of the indicators of SES. Evidence for this relation has been derived from prevalence, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies. Of particular importance to the hypothesis that SES is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease was the finding by several investigators that the patterns of association of SES with coronary disease had changed in men during the past 30 to 40 years and that SES has been associated with the decline of coronary mortality since the mid-1960s. However, the declines in coronary mortality of the last few decades have not affected all segments of society equally. There is some evidence that areas with the poorest socioenvironmental conditions experience later onset in the decline in cardiovascular mortality. A number of studies suggest that poor living conditions in childhood and adolescence contribute to increased risk of arteriosclerosis. Some of these studies have been criticized because of their nature, and others for inadequate control of confounding factors.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

show abstract

“…Numerous studies have shown that breast cancer survival rates are lower among Black than White women (Axtell & Meyers, 1978;Ernster et al, 1978;Nemoto et al, 1980;Ries et al, 1983;Young et al, 1984;Vernon et al, 1985) and among those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) than those of higher SES (Ernster et al, 1978;Linden, 1969;Lipworth et al, 1970;Berg et al, 1977;Dayal et al, 1982;Chirikos et al, 1984). Black women (Axtell & Meyers, 1978;Bain et al, 1986;Polednak, 1986) as compared to White women, and poorer women as compared to wealthier women (Farley & Flannery, 1989) (Baquet et al, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%