CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 221Lung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentHealth disparities and outcomesGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Socioeconomic Inequalities in Lung Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Forrest, Lynne F., Adams, Jean, Wareham, Helen, Rubin, Greg, White, Martin·2013·PLoS Medicine
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001376PMC PMC3564770
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research on socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment for lung cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to September 2012 for cohort studies of participants with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD10 C33 or C34), where the outcome was receipt of treatment (rates or odds of receiving treatment) and where the outcome was reported by a measure of SEP. Forty-six papers met the inclusion criteria, and 23 of these papers were included in meta-analysis. Socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment were observed. Lower SEP was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.86], p<0.001), surgery (OR = 0.68 [CI 0.63 to 0.75], p<0.001) and chemotherapy (OR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93], p = 0.003), but not radiotherapy (OR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.14], p = 0.89), for lung cancer. The association remained when stage was taken into account for receipt of surgery, and was found in both universal and non-universal health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lung cancer living in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances are less likely to receive any type of treatment, surgery, and chemotherapy. These inequalities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic differences in stage at presentation or by differences in health care system. Further investigation is required to determine the patient, tumour, clinician, and system factors that may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001376

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flow diagram of study selection and exclusion. CI, confidence interval; SEP, socioeconomic position.
Figure 1 Flow diagram of study selection and exclusion. CI, confidence interval; SEP, socioeconomic position.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Meta-analysis of odds of receipt of surgery in low versus high SEP. CI, confidence interval; non-UHCS, non-universal health care system; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; SEP, socioeconomic position; UHCS, universal health care system.
Figure 2 Meta-analysis of odds of receipt of surgery in low versus high SEP. CI, confidence interval; non-UHCS, non-universal health care system; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; SEP, socioeconomic position; UHCS, universal health care system.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Meta-analysis of odds of receipt of chemotherapy in low versus high SEP. CI, confidence interval; non-UHCS, non-universal health care system; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; SEP, socioeconomic position; UHCS, universal health care system.
Figure 3 Meta-analysis of odds of receipt of chemotherapy in low versus high SEP. CI, confidence interval; non-UHCS, non-universal health care system; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; SEP, socioeconomic position; UHCS, universal health care system.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Meta-analysis of odds of receipt of radiotherapy in low versus high SEP. CI, confidence interval; non-UHCS, non-universal health care system; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; SEP, socioeconomic position; UHCS, universal health care system.
Figure 4 Meta-analysis of odds of receipt of radiotherapy in low versus high SEP. CI, confidence interval; non-UHCS, non-universal health care system; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; SEP, socioeconomic position; UHCS, universal health care system.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Meta-analysis of odds of receipt of unspecified treatment in low versus high SEP. CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; SEP, socioeconomic position.
Figure 5 Meta-analysis of odds of receipt of unspecified treatment in low versus high SEP. CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; SEP, socioeconomic position.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 78 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 221

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Forrest, L. F., Adams, J., Wareham, H., Rubin, G., & White, M.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Forrest, Lynne F.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2013-02-05
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
e1001376
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
DOI
10.1371/journal.pmed.1001376
PMC
PMC3564770
OpenAlex
W2147340827
Cited by
220
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K02325X/1)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007470/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
lung cancer, socioeconomic disparities, health disparities, treatment receipt, socioeconomic position, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, health care access, universal health care, cancer mortality
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Risk Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Healthcare Disparities, Young Adult

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