Cancer survival disparities worsening by socio-economic disadvantage over the last 3 decades in new South Wales, Australia

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background Public concerns are commonly expressed about widening health gaps. This cohort study examines variations and trends in cancer survival by socio-economic disadvantage, geographical remoteness and country of birth in an Australian population over a 30-year period. Methods Data for cases diagnosed in New South Wales (NSW) in 1980–2008 (n = 651,245) were extracted from the population-based NSW Cancer Registry. Competing risk regression models, using the Fine & Gray method, were used for comparative analyses to estimate sub-hazard ratios (SHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) among people diagnosed with cancer. Results Increased risk of cancer death was associated with living in the most socio-economically disadvantaged areas compared with the least disadvantaged areas (SHR 1.15, 95% CI 1.13–1.17), and in outer regional/remote areas compared with major cities (SHR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03–1.06). People born outside Australia had a similar or lower risk of cancer death than Australian-born (SHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.01 and SHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90–0.92 for people born in other English and non-English speaking countries, respectively). An increasing comparative risk of cancer death was observed over time when comparing the most with the least socio-economically disadvantaged areas (SHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04–1.10 for 1980–1989; SHR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12–1.17 for 1990–1999; and SHR 1.24, 95% CI 1.21–1.27 for 2000–2008; p < 0.001 for interaction between disadvantage quintile and year of diagnosis). Conclusions There is a widening gap in comparative risk of cancer death by level of socio-economic disadvantage that warrants a policy response and further examination of reasons behind these disparities.

Related collections

Most cited references 29

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cancer Disparities by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status

C. Cardinez, A. Ghafoor, M. Thun … (2004)

This article highlights disparities in cancer incidence, mortality, and survival in relation to race/ethnicity, and census data on poverty in the county or census tract of residence. The incidence and survival data derive from the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program; mortality data are from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS); data on the prevalence of major cancer risk factors and cancer screening are from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by NCHS. For all cancer sites combined, residents of poorer counties (those with greater than or equal to 20% of the population below the poverty line) have 13% higher death rates from cancer in men and 3% higher rates in women compared with more affluent counties (less than 10% below the poverty line). Differences in cancer survival account for part of this disparity. Among both men and women, five-year survival for all cancers combined is 10 percentage points lower among persons who live in poorer than in more affluent census tracts. Even when census tract poverty rate is accounted for, however, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander men and African American and American Indian/Alaskan Native women have lower five-year survival than non-Hispanic Whites. More detailed analyses of selected cancers show large variations in cancer survival by race and ethnicity. Opportunities to reduce cancer disparities exist in prevention (reductions in tobacco use, physical inactivity, and obesity), early detection (mammography, colorectal screening, Pap tests), treatment, and palliative care.

0 comments Cited 252 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies.

C Victora, J Vaughan, F. Barros … (2000)

There is considerable international concern that child-health inequities seem to be getting worse between and within richer and poorer countries. The "inverse equity hypothesis" is proposed to explain how such health inequities may get worse, remain the same, or improve over time. We postulate that as new public-health interventions and programmes initially reach those of higher socioeconomic status and only later affect the poor, there are early increases in inequity ratios for coverage, morbidity, and mortality indicators. Inequities only improve later when the rich have achieved new minimum achievable levels for morbidity and mortality and the poor gain greater access to the interventions. The hypothesis was examined using three epidemiological data sets for time trends in child-health inequities within Brazil. Time trends for inequity ratios for morbidity and mortality, which were consistent with the hypothesis, showed both improvements and deterioration over time, despite the indicators showing absolute improvements in health status between rich and poor.

0 comments Cited 233 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Origins of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: a review.

L.M. Woods, B Rachet, M.P. Coleman (2006)

Cancer survival is known to vary by socio-economic group. A review of studies published by 1995 showed this association to be universal and resilient to the many different ways in which socio-economic status was determined. Differences were most commonly attributed to differences in stage of disease at diagnosis. A review of research published since 1995 examining the association of cancer survival with socio-economic variables. An association between socio-economic status and cancer survival has continued to be demonstrated in the last decade of research. Stage at diagnosis and differences in treatment have been cited as the most important explanatory factors. Some research has evaluated the psychosocial elements of this association. Socio-economic differences in cancer survival are now well documented. The explanatory power of stage at diagnosis, although great, should not detract from the evidence of differential treatment between social groups. Neither factor can completely explain the observed socio-economic differences in survival, however, and the importance of differences in tumour and patient factors should now be quantified.