Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in Scotland 1986–2000

Abstract

We analysed trends in 5-year survival of the 18 commonest cancers in Scotland diagnosed between 1986 and 2000 and followed up to 2004 in each of five deprivation groups based on patients postcode of residence at diagnosis. We estimated relative survival up to 5 years after diagnosis, adjusting for the different background mortality in each deprivation group by age, sex and calendar period. We estimated trends in overall survival and in the deprivation gap in survival up to 2004. Five-year survival improved for all malignancies except bladder cancer and was associated with a widening in the deprivation gap in survival. For 25 of 30 cancer -sex combinations examined, 5-year survival was lower among more deprived patients diagnosed during 1996 -2000, and the deprivation gap in survival had widened since 1986 -1990 for 15 of these 25 cancers, similar to the trends seen in England and Wales.

Education, survival, and avoidable deaths in Lithuanian cancer patients, 2001–2009

“…The patterns of educational inequalities in cancer survival by educational level in Lithuania are generally similar to those observed in other European countries [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. For the vast majority of cancer sites, we found an inverse gradient in survival, with the worst survival indicators in the lowest education group.…”

“…There are relatively few population level studies that have looked at differences in the survival rates of cancer patients by socio-economic status, while also taking into account the specific cancer type. Cancer registry-based studies on socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival have been conducted in England and Wales [2], Scotland [3], Denmark [4], Finland [5], Germany [6], Italy [7], and the Netherlands [8]. With the exception of a few smaller-scale medical survey datasets (which are not representative of the entire population), there is little information for eastern European countries that would allow us to examine the relationship between educational level and survival among patients with specific types of cancer.…”

Socioeconomic inequalities in prostate cancer survival: A review of the evidence and explanatory factors

“…33 studies indicate a significant association between SES and survival among prostate cancer patients (fully adjusted model if multivariate analyses were conducted) (Aarts et al, 2013a(Aarts et al, , 2013b; Australian Institute of Health and Walfare (2013); Berglund et al, 2012;Bravo et al, 2014;Burns et al, 2014;Byers et al, 2008;Chang et al, 2012;Du et al, 2006;Freeman et al, 2011;Hall et al, 2005a;Hellenthal et al, 2010;Hussain et al, 2008;Jansen et al, 2014;Jeffreys et al, 2009;Li et al, 2012;Louwman et al, 2010;Luo et al, 2013;Marsa et al, 2008;Niu et al, 2010;Prasad et al, 2014;Rachet et al, 2010;Robbins et al, 2007aRobbins et al, , 2007b; Rowan et al, 2008;Schwartz et al, 2009;Shack et al, 2007;Tewari et al, 2005Tewari et al, , 2006 one study also reports this trend without presenting data about significance (Pokhrel et al, 2010), and another study does not indicate significant results regarding the most current calendar period but former periods (Dutta Roy et al, 2005). 11 studies did not verify a significant association in the fully adjusted model (Haynes et al, 2008;McPhail et al, 2013;Miki et al, 2014;Movsas et al, 2014;Papa et al, 2014;Rapiti et al, 2009;Shafique et al, , 2012b…”

Understanding Professionals' Perspectives on Access to Care for Patients with Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder in Scotland: A Qualitative Study

“…Studies [10][11]27] have identified low socio-economic status as a reason for inequity in access to cancer care but the study participants talked about inequity issue from a relatively different angle. First of all patients of urinary bladder carcinoma are comparatively older than other carcinoma patients.…”

“…Literature reviews reviled inadequacy of staffs and infrastructure [5][6], prolonged waiting time [7][8][9] and inequity in cancer care [10][11] as the major barriers in access to care for urinary bladder carcinoma patients. The gaps identified in the literature in service provision were ineffective support system [12][13] and financial inconvenience [14][15][16].…”