Dataset Information

An investigation of cancer survival inequalities associated with individual-level socio-economic status, area-level deprivation, and contextual effects, in a cancer patient cohort in England and Wales.

ABSTRACT:

Background

People living in more deprived areas of high-income countries have lower cancer survival than those in less deprived areas. However, associations between individual-level socio-economic circumstances and cancer survival are relatively poorly understood. Moreover, few studies have addressed contextual effects, where associations between individual-level socio-economic status and cancer survival vary depending on area-based deprivation.

Methods

Using 9276 individual-level observations from a longitudinal study in England and Wales, we examined the association with cancer survival of area-level deprivation and individual-level occupation, education, and income, for colorectal, prostate and breast cancer patients aged 20-99 at diagnosis. With flexible parametric excess hazard models, we estimated excess mortality across individual-level and area-level socio-economic variables and investigated contextual effects.

Results

For colorectal cancers, we found evidence of an association between education and cancer survival in men with Excess Hazard Ratio (EHR) = 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.60;1.08 comparing "degree-level qualification and higher" to "no qualification" and EHR = 0.74 [0.56;0.97] comparing "apprenticeships and vocational qualification" to "no qualification", adjusted on occupation and income; and between occupation and cancer survival for women with EHR = 0.77 [0.54;1.10] comparing "managerial/professional occupations" to "manual/technical," and EHR = 0.81 [0.63;1.06] comparing "intermediate" to "manual/technical", adjusted on education and income. For breast cancer in women, we found evidence of an association with income (EHR = 0.52 [0.29;0.95] for the highest income quintile compared to the lowest, adjusted on education and occupation), while for prostate cancer, all three individual-level socio-economic variables were associated to some extent with cancer survival. We found contextual effects of area-level deprivation on survival inequalities between occupation types for breast and prostate cancers, suggesting wider individual-level inequalities in more deprived areas compared to least deprived areas. Individual-level income inequalities for breast cancer were more evident than an area-level differential, suggesting that area-level deprivation might not be the most effective measure of inequality for this cancer. For colorectal cancer in both sexes, we found evidence suggesting area- and individual-level inequalities, but no evidence of contextual effects.

Conclusions

Findings highlight that both individual and contextual effects contribute to inequalities in cancer outcomes. These insights provide potential avenues for more effective policy and practice.

SUBMITTER: Ingleby FC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8759193 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMost research on health inequalities uses aggregated deprivation scores assigned to the small area where the patient lives; however, the concordance between aggregate area-level deprivation measures and personal deprivation experienced by individuals living in the area is poorly understood. Our objective was to examine the agreement between individual and ecological deprivation. We tested the concordance between metrics of income, occupation and education at individual and area levels, and assessed the reliability of area-based deprivation measures to predict individual deprivation circumstances.SettingEngland and Wales.ParticipantsA cancer patient cohort of 9547 individuals extracted from the Office for National Statistics Longitudinal Study.OutcomesWe quantified the concordance between measures of income, occupation and education at individual and area level. In addition, we used ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) to assess the reliability of area-based deprivation measures to predict individual deprivation circumstances.ResultsWe found low concordance between individual-level and area-level indicators of deprivation (Cramer's V statistics range between 0.07 and 0.20). The most commonly used indicator in health inequalities research, area-based income deprivation, was a poor predictor of individual income status (AUC between 0.56 and 0.59), whereas education and occupation were slightly better predictors (AUC between 0.62 and 0.65). The results were consistent across sexes and across six major cancer types.ConclusionsOur results indicate that ecological deprivation measures capture only part of the relationship between deprivation and health outcomes, especially with respect to income measurement. This has important implications for our understanding of the relationship between deprivation and health, and, as a consequence, healthcare policy. The results have a wide-reaching impact for the way in which we measure and monitor inequalities, and in turn, fund and organise current UK healthcare policy aimed at reducing them.

Project description:Background and aimsWhen measuring inequalities in health, public health and addiction research has tended to focus on differences in average life-span between socio-economic groups. This does not account for the extent to which age of death varies between individuals within socio-economic groups or whether this variation differs between groups. This study assesses (1) socio-economic inequalities in both average life-span and variation in age at death, (2) the extent to which these inequalities can be attributed to alcohol-specific causes (i.e. those attributable only to alcohol) and (3) how this contribution has changed over time.DesignCause-deleted life table analysis of national mortality records.SettingEngland and Wales, 2001-16.CasesAll-cause and alcohol-specific deaths for all adults aged 18+, stratified by sex, age and quintiles of the index of multiple deprivation (IMD).MeasurementsLife expectancy at age 18 yearss and standard deviation in age at death within IMD quintiles and the contribution of alcohol to overall differences in both measures between the highest and lowest IMD quintiles by comparing observed and cause-deleted inequality 'gaps'.FindingsIn 2016, alcohol-specific causes reduced life expectancy for men and women by 0.26 and 0.14 years, respectively, and increased the standard deviation in age at death. These causes also increased the inequality gap in life expectancy by 0.33 years for men and 0.17 years for women, and variation in age at death by 0.14 years and 0.13 years, respectively. For both measures, the contribution of alcohol to mortality inequalities rose after 2001 and subsequently fell back. For women, alcohol accounted for 3.6% of inequality in age at death and 6.0% of life-span uncertainty, suggesting that using only the former may underestimate alcohol-induced inequalities. There was no comparable difference for men.ConclusionsDeaths from alcohol-specific causes increase inequalities in both life expectancy and variation in age of death between socio-economic groups. Using both measures can provide a fuller picture of overall inequalities in health.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of socio-economic deprivation on endometrial cancer survival.DesignSingle-centre prospective database study.SettingNorth West England.PopulationWomen with endometrial cancer treated between 2010 and 2015.MethodsAreal-level socio-economic status, using the English indices of multiple deprivation from residential postcodes, was analysed in relation to survival using Kaplan-Meier estimation and multivariable Cox regression.Main outcome measuresOverall survival, cancer-specific survival and patterns and rates of recurrence.ResultsA total of 539 women, with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range, IQR 56-73 years) and a body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m2 (IQR 26-39 kg/m2 ), were included in the analysis. Women in the most deprived social group were younger (median 64 years, IQR 55-72 years) and more obese (median 34 kg/m2 , IQR 28-42 kg/m2 ) than women in the least deprived group (median age 68 years, IQR 60-74 years; BMI 29 kg/m2 , IQR 25-36 kg/m2 ; P = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively). There were no differences in endometrial cancer type, stage or grade between social groups. There was no difference in recurrence rates, however, women in the middle and most deprived social groups were more likely to present with distant/metastatic recurrence (80.6 and 79.2%, respectively) than women in the least deprived group (43.5%, P < 0.001). Women in the middle and most deprived groups had a two-fold (adjusted hazard ratio, HR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.07-3.73, P = 0.030) and 53% (adjusted HR = 1.53, 95% CI 0.77-3.04, P = 0.221) increase in cancer-specific mortality compared with women in the least deprived group. There were no differences in overall survival.ConclusionsWe found that socio-economically deprived women with endometrial cancer were more likely to develop fatal recurrence. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and to identify modifiable contributing factors.Tweetable abstractSocio-economic deprivation is linked to an increased risk of death from endometrial cancer in the North West of England.

Project description:BackgroundObservational studies have highlighted that where individuals live is far more important for risk of dying with COVID-19, than for dying of other causes. Deprivation is commonly proposed as explaining such differences. During the period of localised restrictions in late 2020, areas with higher restrictions tended to be more deprived. We explore how this impacted the relationship between deprivation and mortality and see whether local or regional deprivation matters more for inequalities in COVID-19 mortality.MethodsWe use publicly available population data on deaths due to COVID-19 and all-cause mortality between March 2020 and April 2021 to investigate the scale of spatial inequalities. We use a multiscale approach to simultaneously consider three spatial scales through which processes driving inequalities may act. We go on to explore whether deprivation explains such inequalities.ResultsAdjusting for population age structure and number of care homes, we find highest regional inequality in October 2020, with a COVID-19 mortality rate ratio of 5.86 (95% CI 3.31 to 19.00) for the median between-region comparison. We find spatial context is most important, and spatial inequalities higher, during periods of low mortality. Almost all unexplained spatial inequality in October 2020 is removed by adjusting for deprivation. During October 2020, one standard deviation increase in regional deprivation was associated with 20% higher local mortality (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.30).ConclusionsSpatial inequalities are greatest in periods of lowest overall mortality, implying that as mortality declines it does not do so equally. During the prolonged period of low restrictions and low mortality in summer 2020, spatial inequalities strongly increased. Contrary to previous months, we show that the strong spatial patterning during autumn 2020 is almost entirely explained by deprivation. As overall mortality declines, policymakers must be proactive in detecting areas where this is not happening, or risk worsening already strong health inequalities.