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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 23%
Student > Master 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Mathematics 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%

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
#4,399,280
of 8,272,014 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,536
of 3,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,756
of 253,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#88
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,272,014 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,478 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 253,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.