Skip to content
PaperFren

Oncology outcomes

Does socioeconomic status change cancer survival?

Braaten T, Weiderpass E, Lund E · BMC public health · 2009

Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC

In Norwegian women, lower education and income predicted worse cancer survival until stage and smoking were accounted for.

Save to libraryView originalAsk PaperFrenStudy this in NoteFren
Watch this

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

  • SupportsOncology Outcomesconcept

    Multiple studies in this library examine oncology outcomes with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsOncology Outcomesconcept

    An overall negative SES–survival gradient was present. Stage contribution was inconsistent, smoking was important, and after adjusting for stage and smoking the education and income differences became non-significant.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsOncology Outcomesconcept

    Effect sizes and settings differ across oncology outcomes studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsCohort Studymethod

    Protective lifestyle HRs and harmful drug HRs are not interchangeable clinical instructions. Diet-quality HRs around 0.74–0.78 and HLI HRs of 0.67–0.77 do not prove that prescribing a diet would prevent depression or diabetes, while extra falls on named antidepressants may mark who is prescribed them rather than a pure drug effect. Norwegian cancer-survival SES gradients even became non-significant after stage and smoking were in the model.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

Open questions

Tensions this paper is part of

From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.

Study at a glance

Design
Cohort — NOWAC; education and household income vs cancer survival with stage and smoking adjustment
N
N=3849 · 3,849 incident invasive cancers with SES data from a 91,814-woman study population
Population
Norwegian women with incident primary invasive cancer in NOWAC
Outcome
Cancer survival by education and household income

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Inspect source passages

Does socioeconomic status change cancer survival?

These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.

What overall SES–survival pattern was found?

In summary, we found an overall negative socioeconomic gradient in cancer survival when SES is measured as years of education or gross household income.

Which behaviour strongly predicted survival?

The contribution of stage at diagnosis on survival differences was inconsistent, whereas smoking status prior to diagnosis was an important predictive factor for survival.
Read passages in the original paper

Key findings

An overall negative SES–survival gradient was present. Stage contribution was inconsistent, smoking was important, and after adjusting for stage and smoking the education and income differences became non-significant.

Methodology

Using the Norwegian Women and Cancer cohort, investigators related education and household income to cancer survival and tested whether stage and pre-diagnosis smoking explained socioeconomic gradients.

Limitations

Observational findings in Norwegian women cannot isolate residual treatment inequities after smoking and stage adjustment.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.