↓ Skip to main content

No inequalities in survival from colorectal cancer by education and socioeconomic deprivation - a population-based study in the North Region of Portugal, 2000-2002

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
No inequalities in survival from colorectal cancer by education and socioeconomic deprivation - a population-based study in the North Region of Portugal, 2000-2002
Published in
BMC Cancer, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2639-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luís Antunes, Denisa Mendonça, Maria José Bento, Bernard Rachet

Abstract

Association between cancer survival and socioeconomic status has been reported in various countries but it has never been studied in Portugal. We aimed here to study the role of education and socioeconomic deprivation level on survival from colorectal cancer in the North Region of Portugal using a population-based cancer registry dataset. We analysed a cohort of patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with a colorectal cancer in the North Region of Portugal between 2000 and 2002. Education and socioeconomic deprivation level was assigned to each patient based on their area of residence. We measured socioeconomic deprivation using the recently developed European Deprivation Index. Net survival was estimated using Pohar-Perme estimator and age-adjusted excess hazard ratios were estimated using parametric flexible models. Since no deprivation-specific life tables were available, we performed a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the results to life tables adjusted for education and socioeconomic deprivation level. A total of 4,105 cases were included in the analysis. In male patients (56.3 %), a pattern of worse 5- and 10-year net survival in the less educated (survival gap between extreme education groups: -7 % and -10 % at 5 and 10 years, respectively) and more deprived groups (survival gap between extreme EDI groups: -5 % both at 5 and 10 years) was observed when using general life tables. No such clear pattern was found among female patients. In both sexes, when likely differences in background mortality by education or deprivation were accounted for in the sensitivity analysis, any differences in net survival between education or deprivation groups vanished. Our study shows that observed differences in survival by education and EDI level are most likely attributable to inequalities in background survival. Also, it confirms the importance of using the relevant life tables and of performing sensitivity analysis when evaluating socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival. Comparison studies of different healthcare systems organization should be performed to better understand its influence on cancer survival inequalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,381,416
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,123
of 8,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,041
of 366,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#113
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,326 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.