Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39554619›Full record

ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2024

Syndemic geographic patterns of cancer risk in a health-deprived area of England.

Catherine Jones, Thomas Keegan, Andy Knox, Alison Birtle, Jessica A Mendes, Kelly Heys, Peter Atkinson, Luigi Sedda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Catherine JonesUniversity Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Kendal, LA9 7RG, UK.
Thomas KeeganLancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.
Andy KnoxNHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board, Preston, PR1 8XB, UK.
Alison BirtleUniversity Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Kendal, LA9 7RG, UK.
Jessica A MendesLancaster Ecology and Epidemiology Group (LEEG), Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.
Kelly HeysUniversity Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Kendal, LA9 7RG, UK.
Peter AtkinsonScience and Technology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.
Luigi SeddaLancaster Ecology and Epidemiology Group (LEEG), Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to analyse the geographical co-occurrence of cancers and their individual and shared risk factors in a highly deprived area of the North West of England to aid the identification of potential interventions. Study design: An ecological study design was employed and applied at postcode sector level in the Morecambe Bay region. Methods: A novel spatial joint modelling framework designed to account for large frequencies of left-censored cancer data was employed. Nine cancer types (breast, colorectal, gynaecology, haematology, head and neck, lung, skin, upper gastrointestinal, urology) alongside demographic, behavioural factors and socio-economic variables were included in the model. Explanatory factors were selected by employing an accelerated failure model with lognormal distribution. Post-processing included principal components analysis and hierarchical clustering to delineate geographic areas with similar spatial risk patterns of different cancer types. Results: 15,506 cancers were diagnosed from 2017 to 2022, with the highest incidence in skin, breast and urology cancers. Factors such as age, ethnicity, frailty and comorbidities were associated with cancer risk for most of the cancer types. A positive geographical association was found mostly between the colorectal, haematology, upper GI, urology and head and neck cancer types. That is, these cancers had their largest risk in the same areas, similarly to their lowest risk values. The spatial distribution of the risk and cumulative risk of the cancer types revealed regional variations, with five clusters identified based on cancer type risk, demographic and socio-economic characteristics. Rural areas were the least affected by cancer and the urban area of Barrow-in-Furness was the area with the highest cancer risk, three times greater than the risk in the surrounding rural areas. Conclusions: This study emphasizes the utility of joint disease mapping by geographically identifying common or shared factors that, if targeted, could lead to reduced risk of multiple cancers simultaneously. The findings suggest the need for tailored public health interventions, considering specific risk factors and socio-economic disparities. Policymakers can utilize the spatial patterns identified to allocate resources effectively and implement targeted cancer prevention programmes.

Indexed as

Common cancersGeospatial analysesJoint modellingLeft-censoringMorecambe BayNorth West of EnglandSynchronic diseasesVariable selection

Identifiers

PMID39554619
PMCPMC11564078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.