Differences in self-assessed health by socioeconomic group amongst people with and without a history of cancer: an analysis using representative data from Scotland
- 322 Downloads
This paper considers socioeconomic inequalities in self-assessed health amongst people with and without a history of cancer using representative data from Scotland.
A cross-sectional analysis using the Scottish Health Survey was done. Cancer survivors were identified using linked Cancer Registry data. Bivariate and multivariate analysis was used to compare and contrast self-assessed health amongst those with a history of cancer to those without.
Of the 17,505 survey participants, 432 (2.5 %) had a history of cancer. After taking into account potential confounders, those in the lowest socioeconomic group were more likely to report poor health than those in the highest group amongst those with a history of cancer [odds ratio, 2.96; confidence interval (CI), 1.82–4.80] and those with no history of cancer (odds ratio, 2.45; CI, 2.21–2.71). Those in the lowest socioeconomic group with no history of cancer had a greater propensity to report poor health than any of the highest groups that did have a history of cancer (p < 0.01). Differences in propensities to indicate poor health were particularly marked amongst those 4 years or more post-cancer diagnosis.
Findings underline the scale of socioeconomic gradients in health. That disparities were so wide amongst those most temporally distant from initial diagnosis is particularly a concern given improving survival after a cancer diagnosis.
Implications for cancer survivors
Socioeconomic circumstances have a considerable influence on health and well-being. Practitioners and policy makers should consider socioeconomic circumstances in considering approaches to health and social care of cancer survivors.
KeywordsSelf-assessed health Cancer survivors Socioeconomic differences Inequalities
- 2.National Statistics Scotland. Cancer mortality in Scotland (2010), Edinburgh: Information Services Division; 2011.Google Scholar
- 10.Clegg LX, Reichman ME, Miller BA, Hankey BF, Singh GS, Lin YD, et al. Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: national longitudinal mortality study. Cancer Causes & Control. 2009;20:417–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Scottish Government The Scottish Health Survey–Volume 2: Technical Report. . Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/358966/0121307.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2012.
- 17.Gray L, Batty GD, Craig P, Stewart S, Whyte B, Finlayson A, et al. Cohort profile: The Scottish Health Surveys Cohort: linkage of study participants to routinely collected records for mortality, hospital discharge, cancer and offspring birth characteristics in three nationwide studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;39:345–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Office for National Statistics. The National Statistics socio-economic classification user manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2005.Google Scholar
- 20.Rose D, Pevalin DJ. The National Statistics Socioeconomic Classification: unifying official and sociological approaches to the conceptualisation and measurement of social class, ISER Working Papers. Paper 2001-4. Colchester: University of Essex; 2001.Google Scholar
- 21.Gayle V, Lambert PS. Using quasi-variance to communicate sociological results from statistical models. Sociol. 2007;41:1191–208.Google Scholar
- 22.Firth D. Quasi-variances in Xlisp-Stat and on the web. J Stat Softw. 2000;5:1–13.Google Scholar
- 33.Garvican L, Littlejohns P. Comparison of prognostic and socio-economic factors in screen-detected and symptomatic cases of breast cancer. Publ Health. 1998;112:15–20.Google Scholar