Trends and socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England and Wales up to 2001

Abstract

We examined national trends and socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England and Wales during the 1990s, using population-based data on 2.2 million patients who were diagnosed with one of the 20 most common cancers between 1986 and 1999 and followed up to 2001. Patients were assigned to one of five deprivation categories (from 'affluent' to 'deprived') using characteristics of their electoral ward of residence at diagnosis. We estimated relative survival up to 5 years after diagnosis, adjusting separately in each deprivation category for background mortality by age, sex and calendar period. We estimated trends in survival and in the difference in survival between deprivation categories ('deprivation gap') over the periods 1986 -90, 1991 -95 and 1996 -99. We used period analysis to examine likely survival rates in the near future. Survival improved for most cancers in both sexes during the 1990s, and appears likely to continue improving for most cancers in the near future. The deprivation gap in survival between rich and poor was wider for patients diagnosed in the late 1990s than in the late 1980s. Increases in cancer survival in England and Wales during the 1990s are shown to be significantly associated with a widening deprivation gap in survival.

Obesity and overweight in relation to organ-specific cancer mortality in London (UK): findings from the original Whitehall study

“…In so doing, we reasoned that a significant proportion of deaths attributable to cancer, if present at study induction, would have occurred within this time frame. 35 All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS computer software. 36 …”

The impact of nutritional labels and socioeconomic status on energy intake. An experimental field study

“…There was a 3-way interaction between low-fat label, weight concern and 14 socioeconomic status (SES) such that weight-concerned participants of higher SES who saw a 15 low-fat label consumed more than weight unconcerned participants of similar SES (t=-2. 7,16 p=.04). By contrast, weight-concerned participants of lower SES seeing either type of label, 17 consumed less than those seeing no label (t=-2.04, p=.04).…”

“…weight concern 13 on the relationship between nutritional label and consumption? 14 These hypotheses and research question are tested in an experimental field study of the 15 impact of nutritional labelling on objectively assessed snack food consumption in a general 16 population sample of mixed SES.…”

“…Study materials 16 The "low fat" and "high fat" labels were informed by the use UK Food Standards Agency 17 Traffic Light labelling scheme. Specifically the "low fat" label was coloured green and the 18 "high fat" label coloured red.…”

Socioeconomic patterning in the incidence and survival of teenage and young adult men aged between 15 and 24 years diagnosed with non–seminoma testicular cancer in northern england

“…In general, survival for most adult cancers has been found to be significantly lower in more deprived areas [10]. A previously published review considered 63 studies that examined the role of socio-economic status on the incidence and survival from testicular cancer: overall more advantaged socio-economic status was associated with greater incidence and better survival [11].…”