DOCSLIB.ORG

Socioeconomic Differences in Cancer Survival

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Socioeconomic Differences in Cancer Survival J7ournal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1991; 45: 216-219 J Epidemiol Community Health: first published as 10.1136/jech.45.3.216 on 1 September 1991. Downloaded from Socioeconomic differences in cancer survival M Kogevinas, M G Marmot, A J Fox, P 0 Goldblatt Abstract Two decades later, interest in survival patterns Study objective-The aim was to was renewed when large differences among ethnic investigate the relationship between groups in the USA became evident, possibly due socioeconomic status and cancer survival. to differences in the timing of cancer detection.2 Design-This was a prospective study, To obtain nationally representative figures, we linking census and vital registration records examined cancer survival for the period 1971- for an approximate 1% representative 1983 in England and Wales, in the OPCS sample ofthose enumerated in England and Longitudinal Study, a 1%/' sample of people Wales in the 1971 census. identified in the 1971 census. Setting-The study population is nationwide. Participants-The study sample consists Methods of 250 588 men and 262 484 women. During The OPCS Longitudinal Study is a cohort study 1971-81, 17 844 cases of cancer were of an approximately 1 % representative sample of registered, and of those registered, 13 532 those enumerated in England and Wales in the died during 1971-1983. 1971 census and it links census and vital Measurements and main results- registration records.>5 The present analysis is Socioeconomic status was assessed in terms based on death records incorporated from the of housing tenure. Council tenants, the low National Health Service central register, socioeconomic group, had poorer survival population characteristics from the 1971 census, than owner occupiers, the high socio- and cancer incidence from the National Cancer economic group, for the combined group of Registration Scheme. The Longitudinal Study all neoplasms, and for 11 out of 13 sample consists of 250 588 men and 262 484 neoplasms examined in males, and 12 out of women. During the years 1971-1981, 9196 men 15 neoplasms examined in females. and 8652 women were registered with cancer and Differences were found irrespective of age, of those, 7466 men and 6066 women died during cause of death and prognosis of the cancer. the follow up period (1971-1983). Survival analysis by length of follow up Study members were classified by housing indicated that council tenants were more tenure. Owner-occupiers (50% ofthe population) likely to present at a later stage than owner should be regarded as the "high" socioeconomic occupiers. status group and council tenants (30%/ of the http://jech.bmj.com/ Conclusions-Wide survival differentials population) as "low". Two smaller groups, those were observed between socioeconomic in privately rented accommodation and those in Department of have been excluded from Community Medicine, groups. Differences in survival for cancers institutions, University College ofpoor prognosis (eg, oesophagus, pancreas, comparisons here. London and lung) where treatment has little effect, Indirect methods of standardisation were used Middlesex School of to socioeconomic and Standardised Case Fatality Ratios (SFR) Medicine, Gower cannot be attributed Street, London WC1, differences in treatment. The survival were calculated using the case fatality rates of the on September 25, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. United Kingdom differences for cancers of good prognosis whole Longitudinal Study population for the M Kogevinas corpus skin) could, in cancer in question as the standard. M G Marmot (eg, uteri, bladder, Office of Population part, be due to differences in treatment. It is Standardisation was carried out for age and period Censuses and probable that delay in seeking care is one of of follow up, to take into account possible time Surveys, Medical the major contributing causes. trends in incidence. Exact Poisson 95% Statistics Division, for Kingsway, London confidence intervals were estimated WC2 standardised ratios using computerised tables. A J Fox In the discussion of social inequalities in health For the life table analysis the SAS LIFETEST Social Statistics was Research Unit, City there has been much debate on the role of medical procedure used. University, London care. In England and Wales there are large EC1 socioeconomic differences in incidence and P 0 Goldblatt mortality from cancer. To understand the Results Correspondence to: potential importance of socioeconomic Both male and female council tenants had Dr Kogevinas, at Unit of differences in prompt detection and treatment of significantly worse survival than owner-occupiers Analytical Epidemiology, International Agency for cancer it is essential to have data on differences in when SFRs were calculated for all malignant Research on Cancer, 150 cancer survival. These have been examined less neoplasms (tables I and II). This overall figure is, Cours Albert-Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, extensively than differences in cancer incidence. however, affected by the different distribution of France The first studies, conducted by Cohart in 1955, cancers among incident cases. Cancers with poor make a of all Accepted for publication detected an association between socioeconomic prognosis up larger proportion September 1990 status and cancer survival only for breast cancer. ' cancers in lower socioeconomic groups than in Socioeconomic differences in cancer survival 217 J Epidemiol Community Health: first published as 10.1136/jech.45.3.216 on 1 September 1991. Downloaded from higher, especially in men. Among council tenants, Death certificates do not always show a person 48% of male cases and 20% of female were with a cancer to have died of this cancer. Patterns registered with lung, stomach, pancreatic, and observed for any cause of death were similar to oesophageal cancer, compared to 38% of male those based only on deaths from primary cancer. owner-occupiers and 16% in female. An analysis of socioeconomic differences in Of 13 sites examined in men, which comprised survival by age, showed that difference persisted 86% of the total number of cancer cases, council in all age groups. tenants had higher SFRs than owner-occupiers in 11 (table I). In women, council tenants had higher SFRs than owner-occupiers in 12 of the 15 sites Discussion examined, which comprised 85% of the total In this large, nationally representative study, number of cancer cases (table II). council tenants had higher case fatality rates than Among major sites in men, relative differences owner-occupiers in 11 out of 13 major cancers in in case fatality rates were more pronounced for men and in 12 out of 15 major sites in women. cancers of the colon, bladder and skin; the first of Less privileged socioeconomic groups have those significant at the p <005 level. Among usually been found to have worse survival than major cancers in women, the largest excesses in more privileged, although this has varied over case fatality among council tenants were for time and in different populations and cancer sites. pancreas, skin, corpus uteri, and bladder; In the OPCS Longitudinal Study population, significant for the first two. For prostate cancer relative differences were pronounced for cancers and for the leukaemias in men, and for stomach, of the testis, colon, bladder, and skin in men, and rectal, and breast cancer in women, owner- pancreas, skin, corpus uteri, and bladder in occupiers had higher case fatality rates than women. This accords, in part, with findings from council tenants. the SEER Program in the USA: the widest Table III shows median survival time for all survival differences between blacks and whites neoplasms, lung cancer and for cancers of good were for cancers of the bladder and the corpus prognosis, by housing tenure. Differences in uteri.2 6 In other studies socioeconomic length of survival were large for good prognosis differences in colon cancer are inconsistent,7-14 in cancers, especially cancer of the bladder, the cancer of the pancreas they are small,2 7 8 10 and corpus uteri, and malignant melanoma. Survival there are few published data on skin or testicular analysis by length of follow up for cancers where cancer.7 8 wide differences were observed indicated that In most studies, low socioeconomic groups owner-occupiers had lower case fatality rates than have worse survival for prostate cancer2 7-9 11 15 16 council tenants throughout long periods of follow or breast cancer, 7-9 11 14 15 17-20 contrary to the up. Case fatality rates were especially high for findings in the Longitudinal Study and three council tenants in the initial months of the follow other studies.'0 21 22 There are no obvious up period. reasons for this inconsistency. The higher case fatality of the lower Table I Standardised casefatality ratios (SFR) with 950o confidence intervals (CI) socioeconomic groups cannot be ascribed to for men, by socioeconomic status. Cancers are grouped by prognosis. differences in causes of death other than cancer. Housing tenure The socioeconomic differences were observed whether deaths from any cause, or only deaths Owner-occupiers Council tenants http://jech.bmj.com/ from the primary cancer, were considered. Observed SFR Observed SFR (95% CI) Possible explanations of socioeconomic (950° CI) differences in survival All neoplasms 3131 92 2198 110 include: differences in (88-95) (105-114) treatment, stage of presentation, in host in tumour in Prognosis: 1-1 9% five year relative survival resistance, characteristics, and time Oesophagus 79 93 56 103 of diagnosis (lead time bias). We consider each in (74-117) (78-134) turn. Stomach 313 96 210 106 (86-108) (92-122) on September 25, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. Pancreas 130 96 55 107 TREATMENT (81-115) (80-139 Lung 922 96 889 104 Survival differences in the Longitudinal Study (90-102) (97-111) were consistent and wide for the group of cancers Prognosis: 20-390/ five year relative survival with the best prognosis, eg, corpus uteri, testis, Colon 207 89 109 128 and (77-102) malignant melanoma, but were also evident Rectum (105-154) 175 92 111 109 for cancers with bad prognosis: oesophagus, (79-107) (90-132) pancreas, The Prostate 295 103 136 94 lung.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Starting-Today.Pdf
    Starting today The future of mental health services Final Inquiry report September 2013 Acknowledgements We wish to thank all those who took part in our Inquiry for their support and contributions, and especially the members of our Advisory Panel. We record their names in the Annex to this report. We thank Sam Blausten, Hannah Bullmore, Joanna Carson, Caroline Davis, Alice Inch and Simon Lawton-Smith at the Mental Health Foundation for their help in delivering this report. We acknowledge with thanks the financial contribution to this Inquiry received from the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London and Lilly UK. Contents Forward 1 Summary 2 Background and Terms of Reference 7 Methodology 10 Visions of the future 11 The world in 1983 14 Assumptions about the future, and past and present trends 15 The Call for Evidence: what we were told 19 The six key themes 23 Theme 1 – Personalising services 23 Co-production 24 Self-management 26 Theme 2 – Integrated care 27 Models of integrated care 29 Specialist mental health care in primary care settings 29 Crisis support in the community 31 ‘One stop shops’ and community support 32 Taking integrated care forward 33 Changing the mindset, and the importance of relationships 33 Structural factors that facilitate good integrated care 35 Information-sharing systems 35 Shared protocols 35 Joint funding and commissioning 35 Co-located services 36 Multidiscinplinary teams 36 Liaison services 36 Theme 3 – Lifespan issues 37 Early life 37 Later life 38 Theme 4 – Workforce development 40 The balance
    [Show full text]
  • The Mental Health Act 1983 (The Act)
    Acknowledgement ‘The artwork on the front cover is ‘Missed’ by Chris Ridge, the overall winner of our competition for artwork for the Code of Practice. ‘Missed’ illustrates the benefits of art therapy for people with mental health problems.’ 1 Introduction i. The Code of Practice and this Reference Guide should be used together to provide statutory guidance (the Code of Practice) and an explanation of the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act). ii. There are a small number of clarifications to the Code of Practice and these are listed in Figure 1 at the end of this Introduction. Presentation and content iii. The Reference Guide is divided into 38 chapters with five annexes. Chapters have been grouped into eight clusters relating to common themes and topics. Colour coding has been used so these groups can be recognised. Comprehensive cross-referencing and annexes have been included to ensure that users can readily find related material. The eight clusters reflect the sections of the Code of Practice. The groupings are summarised below. Using the Act: chapter 1 The chapter in this section describes the structure of the Act and provides basic definitions for the terms used in the Act. Protecting patients’ rights and autonomy: chapters 2-6 This group of chapters addresses the issues of particular importance for empowering patients, carers, nearest relatives and others with a legitimate interest in matters relating to care and treatment under the Act. It provides guidance on the nearest relatives including the identification and appointment of an acting nearest relative by the court.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Britain Fairer? Contents
    — The state of equality and human rights 2018 — The state of equality and human rights 2018 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 12 of the Equality Act 2006 as amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 June 2019 Equality and Human Rights Commission 2019 The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Equality and Human Rights Commission copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents ISBN 978-1-5286-1280-7 CCS0419112082 06/19 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Is Britain Fairer? Contents Contents Foreword 4 4 Living standards 59 4.1 Introduction 61 Executive summary 6 4.2 Key policy and legal developments 61 1 Introduction 12 4.3 Housing 69 1.1 How we reviewed the evidence 13 4.4 Poverty 74 1.2 Context 14 4.5 Social care 80 1.3 Next steps 15 4.6 Conclusion 87 2 Education 16 5 Health 88 2.1 Introduction 18 5.1 Introduction 91 2.2 Key policy and legal developments 18 5.2 Key policy and legal developments
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Adult Social Care
    Research, Policy and Planning (2016/17) 32(3), 169-182 Role theory and family values – a conceptual framework for family and social work reciprocation Joan Rapaport1 and Geraldine Poirier Baiani2 1 Visiting Research Fellow, Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s College London 2 Former Assistant Deputy Minister in New Brunswick, Canada __________________________________________________________________________ Abstract Normalization and Social Role Valorization have been extensively associated with the closures of long-stay hospitals for people with mental health problems and with learning disabilities. The related theory of Reciprocal Role Valorization emerged from within a study of the nearest relative, a patient safeguard under the Mental Health Act 1983 in England and Wales. It illustrated the potential for reciprocation provided by the nearest relative powers and related Approved Social Worker duties, to achieve mutually agreed objectives for patient welfare. The theory is conceivably transferable to other case scenarios. The Family Group Conference helps families to find solutions to their respective problems and promotes family and social work collaboration. This framework of interaction suggests Reciprocal Role Valorization may be implicitly at work at the heart of the conference process. The theory’s relevance to the Family Group Conference, in particular the model developed by the Canadian Province of New Brunswick, is here examined. The importance of specialist post- qualifying professional development and professional maturity to enable social workers to unlock family potential is also argued in the context of increasing interest in strengths based social work. Keywords: Reciprocal Role Valorization, nearest relative, Family Group Conference, social worker, strengths based approaches Terms used In this article the term ‘service user’ is preferred to that of patient and used to describe an individual who receives mental health services.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Bulletin
    Statistical Bulletin Childbearing for Women Born in Different Years, England and Wales, 2013 Coverage: England and Wales Date: 04 December 2014 Geographical Area: Country Theme: Population Key points • The average completed family size for women born in 1968, and reaching age 45 in 2013, was 1.92 children per woman. This compares with their mothers’ generation, represented by women born in 1941, who had on average 2.34 children. • Two children was the most common family size for women born in both 1941 and 1968. • The level of childlessness among women born in 1968 (18%) is higher than for women born in 1941 (11%). One in ten women born in 1968 had four or more children, compared with nearly one in five women born in 1941. • Women born in 1983 – the most recent cohort to reach age 30 - have had slightly fewer children on average (1.02) by their 30th birthday than women born in 1968 who had 1.15 children by the same age. Introduction This release previously called ‘Cohort Fertility’ has been renamed as “Childbearing for women born in different years” and presents statistics on childbearing among women in England and Wales. These figures are presented by the year of birth of mother – for groups of women born in the same year - rather than by the year of birth of child. The estimates have been updated with 2013 births, the latest data available, which means that completed family size for women born in 1968 (women reaching age 45 in 2013) is presented for the first time. Although the release is now called “Childbearing for women born in different years” we shall be using the word “cohort” at places within the text for simplicity.
    [Show full text]