Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Urban Health ; 91(3): 510-25, 2014 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24474611

RESUMEN

Some studies suggest that there are urban-rural variations in cancer incidence but whether these simply reflect urban-rural socioeconomic variation is unclear. We investigated whether there were urban-rural variations in the incidence of 18 cancers, after adjusting for socioeconomic status. Cancers diagnosed between 1995 and 2007 were extracted from the population-based National Cancer Registry Ireland and Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and categorised by urban-rural status, based on population density of area of residence at diagnosis (rural <1 person per hectare, intermediate 1-15 people per hectare, urban >15 people per hectare). Relative risks (RR) were calculated by negative binomial regression, adjusting for age, country and three area-based markers of socioeconomic status. Risks were significantly higher in both sexes in urban than rural residents with head and neck (males RR urban vs. rural = 1.53, 95 % CI 1.42-1.64; females RR = 1.29, 95 % CI 1.15-1.45), esophageal (males 1.21, 1.11-1.31; females 1.21, 1.08-1.35), stomach (males 1.36, 1.27-1.46; females 1.19, 1.08-1.30), colorectal (males 1.14, 1.09-1.18; females 1.04, 1.00-1.09), lung (males 1.54, 1.47-1.61; females 1.74, 1.65-1.84), non-melanoma skin (males 1.13, 1.10-1.17; females 1.23, 1.19-1.27) and bladder (males 1.30, 1.21-1.39; females 1.31, 1.17-1.46) cancers. Risks of breast, cervical, kidney and brain cancer were significantly higher in females in urban areas. Prostate cancer risk was higher in rural areas (0.94, 0.90-0.97). Other cancers showed no significant urban-rural differences. After adjusting for socioeconomic variation, urban-rural differences were evident for 12 of 18 cancers. Variations in healthcare utilization and known risk factors likely explain some of the observed associations. Explanations for others are unclear and, in the interests of equity, warrant further investigation.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias/epidemiología , Población Urbana/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Neoplasias Esofágicas/epidemiología , Femenino , Neoplasias de Cabeza y Cuello/epidemiología , Humanos , Incidencia , Irlanda/epidemiología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/epidemiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Irlanda del Norte/epidemiología , Densidad de Población , Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Población Rural/estadística & datos numéricos , Factores Sexuales , Neoplasias Cutáneas/epidemiología , Factores Socioeconómicos , Neoplasias Gástricas/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
2.
J Cancer Epidemiol ; 2013: 612514, 2013.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24454373

RESUMEN

Background. Cancer incidence rates vary considerably between countries and by socioeconomic status (SES). We investigate the impact of SES upon the relative cancer risk in two neighbouring countries. Methods. Data on 229,824 cases for 16 cancers diagnosed in 1995-2007 were extracted from the cancer registries in Northern Ireland (NI) and Republic of Ireland (RoI). Cancers in the two countries were compared using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) adjusted for age and age plus area-based SES. Results. Adjusting for SES in addition to age had a considerable impact on NI/RoI comparisons for cancers strongly related to SES. Before SES adjustment, lung cancer incidence rates were 11% higher for males and 7% higher for females in NI, while after adjustment, the IRR was not statistically significant. Cervical cancer rates were lower in NI than in RoI after adjustment for age (IRR: 0.90 (0.84-0.97)), with this difference increasing after adjustment for SES (IRR: 0.85 (0.79-0.92)). For cancers with a weak or nonexistent relationship to SES, adjustment for SES made little difference to the IRR. Conclusion. Socioeconomic factors explain some international variations but also obscure other crucial differences; thus, adjustment for these factors should not become part of international comparisons.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA