Cited by 114Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealthcare Policy and Management

Association of Increased Dermatologist Density With Lower Melanoma Mortality

Aneja, Savina·2012·Archives of Dermatology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an association between dermatologist density and melanoma mortality. DESIGN: A regression model was developed to test the association between melanoma mortality and dermatologist density, controlling for county demographics, health care infrastructure, and socioeconomic factors. Data were collected from the Area Resource File, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and National Program for Cancer Registries. SETTING: US counties. PATIENTS: Melanoma mortality and incidence data were reported as age-adjusted mean rates per 100 000 people from January 2002, through December 2006. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was melanoma mortality rate per 100 000 people at the county level. RESULTS: Geographic variation exists in the distribution of dermatologists across the United States. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the presence of 0.001 to 1 dermatologist per 100 000 people was associated with a 35.0% reduction in the melanoma mortality rate (95% CI, 13.4%-56.6%) when compared with counties with no dermatologist. The presence of 1.001 to 2 dermatologists per 100 000 people was associated with a 53.0% reduction in the melanoma mortality rate (95% CI, 30.6%-75.4%). Having more than 2 dermatologists per 100 000 people did not further lower melanoma mortality rates. CONCLUSION: Within a given county, a greater dermatologist density is associated with lower melanoma mortality rates compared with counties that lacked a dermatologist.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archdermatol.2011.345

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Regions in the United States with no practicing dermatologists are associated with greater melanoma mortality.

    “Even within the United States, regions with no practicing dermatologists are associated with greater melanoma mortality”

    From Global Burden of Skin Disease: Inequities and Innovations (2017) · cites this paper as [34]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aneja, S.
Affiliations
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Aneja, Savina
Venue
Archives of Dermatology
Published
2012-02-01
Volume
148
Issue
2
Pages
174
ISSN
0003-987X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009725178
Cited by
114
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Case Western Reserve University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
melanoma mortality, health workforce distribution, melanoma incidence, socioeconomic factors, health care access disparities
MeSH terms
Workforce, Adult, Aged, Dermatology, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Skin Neoplasms, United States, Incidence, Multivariate Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review