Effect of socioeconomic status on survival from cervical cancer in Sheffield.

Abstract

However, the relation between socioeconomic status and cervical cancer survival, investigated on a small area basis, has not been reported before in this country. Such small area analysis can highlight large differences not apparent at a regional level, and its use is demonstrated here. MethodsThe survival details, age, occupation, and address of the 564 Sheffield residents registered with the Trent Cancer Registry with cervical cancer (ICD code: 180) from 1971 to 1984 were extracted. Eight cases from the earlier years were duplicates, leaving 556 to be studied. The electoral ward of residence was obtained from the address at registration using the electoral register.Only 30% ofcases had sufficient information recorded for the occupational social class to be ascertained. An alternative approach using area of residence to derive another measure of social class allowed 99% of cases to be classified, thus permitting 548 cases to be studied. The 29 Sheffield electoral wards were ranked in ascending order according to the percentage of semiskilled and unskilled workers in the 1981 census small area statistics (range 7-41%). They were then divided into quintiles of 6, 6, 5, 6, and 6 wards to collect together areas of approximately equivalent socioeconomic status and similar numbers of women.

Cervical and corpus cancer survival disparities by socioeconomic status in a metropolitan area of Japan

“…Many studies have indicated a significant association between low SES and poorer cancer survival in Western countries, ( 3 ) including the well‐established socioeconomic disparities in survival among breast cancer patients in the USA. ( 20 ) The association between low SES and poorer survival among cervical/corpus cancer patients has also been examined in previous studies outside of Japan, using different measures of SES, for example, education, ( 5,7,21 ) occupation, ( 8–11 ) housing tenure, ( 11 ) income, ( 21 ) poverty, ( 5 ) and composite measure. ( 4,12,13 ) In these studies, stage of cancer at diagnosis has been found to be the most important explanatory factor in the association between cancer survival and SES.…”

“…( 6 ) Survival differences in cervical and corpus cancer by SES have been studied in different countries. ( 4,5,7–13 )…”

“…(6) Survival differences in cervical and corpus cancer by SES have been studied in different countries. (4,5,(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13) In Japan, cancer has been a leading cause of death since 1981, with one in three persons dying from cancer. Cancer mortality rates for males and females in 2002 were 298.8 and 187.1 per 100 000, respectively (ICD, 10th revision, codes C00 and C97).…”

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

“…The OPCS Longitudinal Study (Kogevinas, 1990) also recorded a significant difference (P<0.05) in case fatality for cervical cancer between manual and non-manual workers, though not between council tenants and owner occupiers (Kogevinas et al, 1991). In studies of survival from cancer of cervix carried out in Sheffield and Southeast England (Milner & Watts 1987;Murphy et al, 1990) no significant difference in outcome was found, irrespective of whether social status was defined by occupation or area of residence. The much higher levels of deprivation encountered in Scotland compared with England and Wales, however (Carstairs & Morris, 1989) The socio-economic status of each patient was derived from her postcode sector of residence using the seven categories of deprivation devised by Carstairs and Morris (1991 pp.11-13) (Figure 1).…”

Association of Educational Levels with Survival in Indian Patients with Cancer of the Uterine Cervix

“…The differences of survival in patients with carcinoma of the uterine cervix with socio-economic health inequalities is known and it has also been suggested that measuring education levels based on census can serve as important surveillance tools for monitoring temporal trends in uterine cervical cancer-related health inequalities (Milner and Watts, 1987;Schrijvers et al, 1994;Singh et al, 2004) .The female literacy levels in India according to the population census of 2011 is 65.46% and in the state of Assam it is lower than the national average and it stands at 63.0% (Census of India, 2011). Educational level can be an important demographic parameter for surveillance of uterine cervix cancer survival in our population, as the educational levels are abysmally low amongst females in certain regions of the country.…”