Dataset Information

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Socioeconomic inequalities in survival were observed for many cancers in England during 1981-1999. The NHS Cancer Plan (2000) aimed to improve survival and reduce these inequalities. This study examines trends in the deprivation gap in cancer survival after implementation of the Plan.

Materials and method

We examined relative survival among adults diagnosed with 1 of 21 common cancers in England during 1996-2006, followed up to 31 December 2007. Three periods were defined: 1996-2000 (before the Cancer Plan), 2001-2003 (initialisation) and 2004-2006 (implementation). We estimated the difference in survival between the most deprived and most affluent groups (deprivation gap) at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis, and the change in the deprivation gap both within and between these periods.

Results

Survival improved for most cancers, but inequalities in survival were still wide for many cancers in 2006. Only the deprivation gap in 1-year survival narrowed slightly over time. A majority of the socioeconomic disparities in survival occurred soon after a cancer diagnosis, regardless of the cancer prognosis.

Conclusion

The recently observed reduction in the deprivation gap was minor and limited to 1-year survival, suggesting that, so far, the Cancer Plan has little effect on those inequalities. Our findings highlight that earlier diagnosis and rapid access to optimal treatment should be ensured for all socioeconomic groups.

SUBMITTER: Rachet B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2939774 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan.

Rachet B B Ellis L L Maringe C C Chu T T Nur U U Quaresma M M Shah A A Walters S S Woods L L Forman D D Coleman M P MP

British journal of cancer 20100629 4

<h4>Background</h4>Socioeconomic inequalities in survival were observed for many cancers in England during 1981-1999. The NHS Cancer Plan (2000) aimed to improve survival and reduce these inequalities. This study examines trends in the deprivation gap in cancer survival after implementation of the Plan.<h4>Materials and method</h4>We examined relative survival among adults diagnosed with 1 of 21 common cancers in England during 1996-2006, followed up to 31 December 2007. Three periods were defin ...[more]

PMID: 20588275

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among cancers of the female genital tract, with poor outcomes despite chemotherapy. There was a persistent socioeconomic gradient in 1-year survival in England and Wales for more than 3 decades (1971-2001). Inequalities in 5-year survival persisted for more than 20 years but have been smaller for women diagnosed around 2000. We explored one possible explanation.We analysed data on 1406 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 1991-1998 and recruited to one of two randomised clinical trials. In the second International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON2) trial, women diagnosed between 1991 and 1996 were randomised to receive either the three-drug combination cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) or single-agent carboplatin given at optimal dose. In the ICON3 trial, women diagnosed during 1995-1998 were randomised to receive either the same treatments as ICON2, or paclitaxel plus carboplatin.Relative survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was estimated for women in five categories of socioeconomic deprivation. The excess hazard of death over and above background mortality was estimated by fitting multivariable regression models with Poisson error structure and a dedicated link function in a generalised linear model framework, adjusting for the duration of follow-up and the confounding effects of age, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and calendar period.Unlike women with ovarian cancer in the general population, no statistically significant socioeconomic gradient was seen for women with ovarian cancer treated in the two randomised controlled trials. The deprivation gap in 1-year relative survival in the general population was statistically significant at -6.7% (95% CI (-8.1, -5.3)), compared with -3.6% (95% CI (-10.4, +3.2)) in the trial population.Although ovarian cancer survival is significantly lower among poor women than rich women in England and Wales, there was no evidence of an association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival among women with ovarian cancer who were treated and followed up consistently in two well-conducted randomised controlled trials. We conclude that the persistent socioeconomic gradient in survival among women with ovarian cancer, at least for 1-year survival, may be due to differences in access to treatment and standards of care.

Project description:ObjectivesMajor reforms to the organisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England established 42 integrated care systems (ICSs) to plan and coordinate local services. The changes are based on the idea that cross-sector collaboration is needed to improve health and reduce health inequalities-and similar policy changes are happening elsewhere in the UK and internationally. We explored local interpretations of national policy objectives on reducing health inequalities among senior leaders working in three ICSs.DesignWe carried out qualitative research based on semistructured interviews with NHS, public health, social care and other leaders in three ICSs in England.Setting and participantsWe selected three ICSs with varied characteristics all experiencing high levels of socioeconomic deprivation. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of NHS, local government and other organisations involved in the ICS's work on health inequalities. Our interviewees comprised 17 leaders from NHS organisations and 15 leaders from other sectors.ResultsLocal interpretations of national policy objectives on health inequalities varied, and local leaders had contrasting-sometimes conflicting-perceptions of the boundaries of ICS action on reducing health inequalities. Translating national objectives into local priorities was often a challenge, and clarity from national policy-makers was frequently perceived as limited or lacking. Across the three ICSs, local leaders worried that objectives on tackling health inequalities were being crowded out by other short-term policy priorities, such as reducing pressures on NHS hospitals. The behaviour of national policy-makers appeared to undermine their stated priorities to reduce health inequalities.ConclusionsVaried and vague interpretations of NHS policy on health inequalities are not new, but lack of clarity among local health leaders brings major risks-including interventions being poorly targeted or inadvertently widening inequalities. Greater conceptual clarity is likely needed to guide ICS action in future.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Although adolescence is a sensitive developmental period in oral health, the social equalization hypothesis that suggests health inequalities attenuate in adolescence has not been examined. This study analyses whether the socioeconomic gap and ethnic disadvantage in oral health among children aged 5 reduces among adolescents aged 15. METHODS:Data from the cross-sectional Children's Dental Health Survey 2013 were analysed, comprising of 8541 children aged 5, 8, 12 and 15 attending schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Oral health indicators included decayed and filled teeth, plaque, gingivitis and periodontal health. Ethnicity was measured using the 2011 UK census ethnic categories. Socioeconomic position was measured by family, school and residential deprivation. Negative binomial and probit regression models estimated the levels of oral health by ethnicity and socioeconomic position, adjusted for demographic and tooth characteristics. RESULTS:The predicted rate of decayed teeth for White British/Irish children aged 5 was 1.54 (95%CI 1.30-1.77). In contrast, the predicted rate for Indian and Pakistani children was about 2-2.5 times higher. At age 15, ethnic differences had reduced considerably. Family deprivation was associated with higher levels of tooth decay among younger children but not among adolescents aged 15. The influence of residential deprivation on the rate of tooth decay and filled teeth was similar among younger and older children. Moreover, inequalities in poor periodontal health by residential deprivation was significantly greater among 15-year-old children compared to younger children. CONCLUSIONS:This study found some evidence of smaller ethnic and family socioeconomic differences in oral health among British adolescents compared to younger children. However, substantial differences in oral health by residential deprivation remain among adolescents. Community levels of deprivation may be particularly important for the health of adolescents.

Dataset Information

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan.

Background

Materials and method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets