ArticleBMC cancer2007
The association of cancer survival with four socioeconomic indicators: a longitudinal study of the older population of England and Wales 1981-2000.
Article in BMC cancer, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Geographical Variations in Prostate Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of International Evidence.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Socio-economic position, area-level deprivation and gradients in cancer incidence: England and Wales, 1971-2016.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Systematic review of the association between socioeconomic status and bladder cancer survival with hospital type, comorbidities, and treatment delay as mediators.BJUI compass · 2021Review
- Article
- Socioeconomic Differences and Lung Cancer Survival-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Article
- Describing the association between socioeconomic inequalities and cancer survival: methodological guidelines and illustration with population-based data.Clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IN BREAST CANCER TREATMENT: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2015Review
- Variation in advanced stage at diagnosis of lung and female breast cancer in an English region 2006-2009.British journal of cancer · 2012Article
- Comparing cancer mortality and GDP health expenditure in England and Wales with other major developed countries from 1979 to 2006.British journal of cancer · 2011Article
- Socioeconomic status and gastric cancer survival in Japan.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2010Article
- Inequalities in cancer survival and the NHS cancer plan: evidence of progress?British journal of cancer · 2010Article
- Population based time trends and socioeconomic variation in use of radiotherapy and radical surgery for prostate cancer in a UK region: continuous survey.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Article
- Socioeconomic differences in cancer survival: the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study.BMC public health · 2009Article
- Socio-economic status and overall and cause-specific mortality in Sweden.BMC public health · 2008Article
- Changes in cancer incidence and mortality in England and Wales and a comparison of cancer deaths in the major developed countries by age and sex 1979-2002 in context of GDP expenditure on health.Ecancermedicalscience · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies have found socioeconomic differentials in cancer survival. Previous studies have generally demonstrated poorer cancer survival with decreasing socioeconomic status but mostly used only ecological measures of status and analytical methods estimating simple survival. This study investigate socio-economic differentials in cancer survival using four indicators of socioeconomic status; three individual and one ecological. It uses a relative survival method which gives a measure of excess mortality due to cancer.
methodsThis study uses prospective record linkage data from The Office for National Statistics Longitudinal Study for England and Wales. The participants are Longitudinal Study members, recorded at census in 1971 and 1981 and with a primary malignant cancer diagnosed at age 45 or above, between 1981 and 1997, with follow-up until end 2000. The outcome measure is relative survival/excess mortality, compared with age and sex adjusted survival of the general population. Relative survival and Poisson regression analyses are presented, giving models of relative excess mortality, adjusted for covariates.
resultsDifferent socioeconomic indicators detect survival differentials of varying magnitude and definition. For all cancers combined, the four indicators show similar effects. For individual cancers there are differences between indicators. Where there is an association, all indicators show poorer survival with lower socioeconomic status.
conclusionCancer survival differs markedly by socio-economic status. The commonly used ecological measure, the Carstairs Index, is adequate at demonstrating socioeconomic differentials in survival for combined cancers and some individual cancers. A combination of car access and housing tenure is more sensitive than the ecological Carstairs measure at detecting socioeconomic effects on survival--confirming Carstairs effects where they occur but additionally identifying effects for other cancers. Social class is a relatively weak indicator of survival differentials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.