2023
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5881
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cancer‐Specific health equity metrics in the United States of America: A scoping review

Abstract: Systematic inequalities in cancer care have been noted since the early 1970s following the passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971 and the creation of the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Over the subsequent five decades, data from SEER have revealed disparities in

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Differences between healthcare providers have been observed previously both regarding implementation of treatments and outcome of cancer care [31,32], and hospital-level variability in guideline adherence has translated into effects on overall survival [33,34]. Some factors that have previously been associated with non-adherence to treatment guidelines are access to cancer specialists [31], facility patient volume [35], social determinants [36] and cost of care [37]. We argue that assessments in the regions of cost/benefit ratio had a strong impact on adherence since the cost for doublet therapy is carried by each region.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Differences between healthcare providers have been observed previously both regarding implementation of treatments and outcome of cancer care [31,32], and hospital-level variability in guideline adherence has translated into effects on overall survival [33,34]. Some factors that have previously been associated with non-adherence to treatment guidelines are access to cancer specialists [31], facility patient volume [35], social determinants [36] and cost of care [37]. We argue that assessments in the regions of cost/benefit ratio had a strong impact on adherence since the cost for doublet therapy is carried by each region.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The specific reason for the low adherence and the large differences between regions in our study cannot be deduced from our data. Differences between healthcare providers have been observed previously both regarding implementation of treatments and outcome of cancer care [31,32], and hospital-level variability in guideline adherence has translated into effects on overall survival [33,34]. Some factors that have previously been associated with non-adherence to treatment guidelines are access to cancer specialists [31], facility patient volume [35], social determinants [36] and cost of care [37].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%