Dataset Information

The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe.

ABSTRACT: Breast cancer rates are lower amongst women from more socio-economically deprived areas. However, their mortality rates are higher. One explanation of this breast cancer paradox is that women from more deprived areas are less likely to attend breast cancer screening programmes. This systematic review is the first to examine this issue in Europe. A systematic review of Embase, Medline and PsychINFO (from 2008 to 2019) was undertaken (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018083703). Observational studies were included if they were based in Europe, measured breast cancer screening uptake, compared at least two areas, included an area-level measure of socio-economic deprivation and were published in the English language. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist was used to assess study quality and risk of bias. Thirteen studies from seven different European countries met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. In ten of the thirteen studies, there was a significant negative association between screening uptake and area-level socio-economic deprivation - with women living in more socio-economically deprived neighbourhoods less likely to attend breast cancer screening. Although universal screening programmes were provided in most studies, there were still strong negative associations between screening uptake and area-level socio-economic deprivation. Future breast cancer screening strategies should acknowledge these challenges, and consider developing targeted interventions in more deprived areas to increase screening participation.

SUBMITTER: Smith D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6547165 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe.

Smith Dinah D Thomson Katie K Bambra Clare C Todd Adam A

Cancer epidemiology 20190328

Breast cancer rates are lower amongst women from more socio-economically deprived areas. However, their mortality rates are higher. One explanation of this breast cancer paradox is that women from more deprived areas are less likely to attend breast cancer screening programmes. This systematic review is the first to examine this issue in Europe. A systematic review of Embase, Medline and PsychINFO (from 2008 to 2019) was undertaken (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018083703). Observational st ...[more]

PMID: 30927689

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWomen from socioeconomically deprived areas have lower breast cancer (BC) incidence rates for screen-detected oestrogen receptor (ER) + tumours and higher mortality for select tumour subtypes. We aimed to determine if ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence (IBR) differs by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) quintile and tumour subtype in Scotland.MethodsPatient data for primary invasive BC diagnosed in 2007-2008 in Scotland was analysed. Manual case-note review for 3495 patients from 10 years post-diagnosis was used. To determine the probability of IBR while accounting for the competing risk of death from any cause, cumulative incidence functions stratified by ER subtype and surgery were plotted. Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to estimate the association of SIMD accounting for other predictors of IBR.ResultsAmong 2819 ER + tumours, 423 patients had a recurrence and 438 died. SIMD was related to death (p = 0.018) with the most deprived more likely to have died in the 10-year period (17.7% vs. 12.9%). We found no significant differences by SIMD in prognostic tumour characteristics (grade, TNM stage, treatment, screen-detection) or risk of IBR. Among 676 patients diagnosed with ER- tumours, 105 died and 185 had a recurrence. We found no significant differences in prognostic tumour characteristics by SIMD except screen detection with the most deprived more likely than the least to have their tumours detected from screening (46.9% vs. 28%, p = 0.03). Among patients with ER- tumours, 50% had mastectomy and the most deprived had increased 5-year IBR risk compared to the least deprived (HR 3.03 [1.41-6.53]).ConclusionsIBR is not a major contributor to mortality differences by SIMD for the majority of BC patients in our study. The lack of inequities in IBR are likely due to standardised treatment protocols and access to healthcare. The association with socioeconomic deprivation and recurrence for ER- tumours requires further study.

Project description:ImportanceDiabetes management operates under a complex interrelationship between behavioral, social, and economic factors that affect a patient's ability to self-manage and access care.ObjectiveTo examine the association between 2 complementary area-based metrics, area deprivation index (ADI) score and rurality, and optimal diabetes care.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed the electronic health records of patients who were receiving care at any of the 75 Mayo Clinic or Mayo Clinic Health System primary care practices in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin in 2019. Participants were adults with diabetes aged 18 to 75 years. All data were abstracted and analyzed between June 1 and November 30, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the attainment of all 5 components of the D5 metric of optimal diabetes care: glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <8.0%), blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg), lipid control (use of statin therapy according to recommended guidelines), aspirin use (for patients with ischemic vascular disease), and no tobacco use. The proportion of patients receiving optimal diabetes care was calculated as a function of block group-level ADI score (a composite measure of 17 US Census indicators) and zip code-level rurality (calculated using Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes). Odds of achieving the D5 metric and its components were assessed using logistic regression that was adjusted for demographic characteristics, coronary artery disease history, and primary care team specialty.ResultsAmong the 31 934 patients included in the study (mean [SD] age, 59 [11.7] years; 17 645 men [55.3%]), 13 138 (41.1%) achieved the D5 metric of optimal diabetes care. Overall, 4090 patients (12.8%) resided in the least deprived quintile (quintile 1) of block groups and 1614 (5.1%) lived in the most deprived quintile (quintile 5), while 9193 patients (28.8%) lived in rural areas and 2299 (7.2%) in highly rural areas. The odds of meeting the D5 metric were lower for individuals residing in quintile 5 vs quintile 1 block groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78). Patients residing in rural (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) and highly rural (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.91) zip codes were also less likely to attain the D5 metric compared with those in urban areas.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that patients living in more deprived and rural areas were significantly less likely to attain high-quality diabetes care compared with those living in less deprived and urban areas. The results call for geographically targeted population health management efforts by health systems, public health agencies, and payers.

Project description:ImportanceSocial determinants of health play a role in diabetes management and outcomes, including potentially life-threatening complications of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS). Although several person-level socioeconomic factors have been associated with these complications, the implications of area-level socioeconomic deprivation are unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the association between area-level deprivation and the risks of experiencing emergency department visits or hospitalizations for hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic crises (ie, DKA or HHS).Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used deidentified administrative claims data for privately insured individuals and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries across the US. The analysis included adults with diabetes who met the claims criteria for diabetes between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. Data analyses were performed from November 17, 2020, to November 11, 2021.ExposuresArea deprivation index (ADI) was derived for each county for 2016 and 2017 using 17 county-level indicators from the American Community Survey. ADI values were applied to patients who were living in each county based on their index dates and were categorized according to county-level ADI quintile (with quintile 1 having the least deprivation and quintile 5 having the most deprivation).Main outcomes and measuresThe numbers of emergency department visits or hospitalizations related to the primary diagnoses of hypoglycemia and DKA or HHS (ascertained using validated diagnosis codes in the first or primary position of emergency department or hospital claims) between 2016 and 2019 were calculated for each ADI quintile using negative binomial regression models and adjusted for patient age, sex, health plan type, comorbidities, glucose-lowering medication type, and percentage of White residents in the county.ResultsThe study population included 1 116 361 individuals (563 943 women [50.5%]), with a mean (SD) age of 64.9 (13.2) years. Of these patients, 343 726 (30.8%) resided in counties with the least deprivation (quintile 1) and 121 810 (10.9%) lived in counties with the most deprivation (quintile 5). Adjusted rates of severe hypoglycemia increased from 13.54 (95% CI, 12.91-14.17) per 1000 person-years in quintile 1 counties to 19.13 (95% CI, 17.62-20.63) per 1000 person-years in quintile 5 counties, corresponding to an incidence rate ratio of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.29-1.54; P < .001). Adjusted rates of DKA or HHS increased from 7.49 (95% CI, 6.96-8.02) per 1000 person-years in quintile 1 counties to 8.37 (95% CI, 7.50-9.23) per 1000 person-years in quintile 5 counties, corresponding to an incidence rate ratio of 1.12 (95% CI, 1.00-1.25; P = .049).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that living in counties with a high area-level deprivation was associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia and DKA or HHS. The concentration of these preventable events in areas of high deprivation signals the need for interventions that target the structural barriers to optimal diabetes management and health.

Project description:BackgroundInternationally, there are growing concerns about antimicrobial resistance. This has resulted in increased scrutiny of antibiotic prescribing trends - particularly in primary care where the majority of prescribing occurs. In England, antibiotic prescribing targets are set nationally but little is known about the local context of antibiotic prescribing. This study aimed to examine trends in antibiotic prescribing (including broad-spectrum), and the association with area-level deprivation and region in England.MethodsAntibiotic prescribing data by GP surgery in England were obtained from NHS Business Service Authority for the years 2014-2018. These data were matched with the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 at the Lower Layer Super Output Area level Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level. Linear regression methods were employed to explore the relationship between antibiotic use and area-level deprivation as well as region, after controlling for a range of other confounding variables, including health need, rurality, and ethnicity.ResultsOver time, the amount of antibiotic prescribing significantly reduced from 1.11 items per STAR-PU to 0.96 items per STAR-PU - a reduction of 13.6%. The adjusted models found that, at LSOA level, the most deprived areas of England had the highest levels of antibiotic prescribing (0.03 items per STAR-PU higher). However, broad spectrum antibiotic prescribing exceeding 10% of all antibiotic prescribing within a GP practice was higher in more affluent areas. There were also significant regional differences - with the North East and the East of England having the highest levels of antibiotic prescribing (by 0.16 items per STAR-PU).ConclusionAlthough antibiotic prescribing has reduced over time, there remains significant variation in by area-level deprivation and region in England - with higher antibiotic prescribing in more deprived areas. Future prescribing targets should account for local factors to ensure the most deprived communities are not inappropriately penalised.

Dataset Information

The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe.

Publications

The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets