2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03585-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social determinants of colorectal cancer risk, stage, and survival: a systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

5
69
1
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 91 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
5
69
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, as opposed to biological factors (eg, genetic traits), social determinants of health are a range of social, economic, political, and environmental factors that contribute to individuals’ health conditions and disparities, such as inequalities in cancer screening [ 26 - 28 ]. Results show that patients who have poor social determinants of health, such as lack of insurance, low income, and living in a deprived neighborhood, are often less likely to adopt cancer screening [ 28 - 30 ]. Evidence from randomized clinical trials further indicates that, compared to patients with private insurance, patients with Medicaid or with no insurance received reduced benefits from the same intervention program [ 31 ].…”
Section: Cancer Screening Challenges Opportunities and Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other words, as opposed to biological factors (eg, genetic traits), social determinants of health are a range of social, economic, political, and environmental factors that contribute to individuals’ health conditions and disparities, such as inequalities in cancer screening [ 26 - 28 ]. Results show that patients who have poor social determinants of health, such as lack of insurance, low income, and living in a deprived neighborhood, are often less likely to adopt cancer screening [ 28 - 30 ]. Evidence from randomized clinical trials further indicates that, compared to patients with private insurance, patients with Medicaid or with no insurance received reduced benefits from the same intervention program [ 31 ].…”
Section: Cancer Screening Challenges Opportunities and Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earlier studies have further found that married men and women have a lower risk of early mortality ( Pinquart & Duberstein, 2010 ). Some studies have also reported earlier detection of specific cancers such as cancers of colon and rectum among married people ( Coughlin, 2020 ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The present study of all Finnish persons aged over 40 years examined the associations of living alone with (A) cancer incidence, (B) cancer-specific mortality and (C) all-cause mortality after cancer diagnosis of the eight most common cancers: prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung and tracheal cancer, cancer of the corpus uteri, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, squamous cell skin cancer and skin melanoma. Because low socioeconomic position has been associated with both small social networks ( Algren et al, 2020 ) and higher cancer incidence and case-fatality risk ( Auvinen, Karjalainen, & Pukkala, 1995 ; Coughlin, 2019 , 2020 ; Fleisch Marcus et al, 2017 ; Pokhrel et al, 2010 ; Raedkjaer et al, 2020 ), we considered the effects of low education and income in our analyses. We included these common cancers because of their importance for health burden for individuals and for the society as a whole, although some of them are sex specific or common only in men or in women.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other words, as opposed to biological factors (eg, genetic traits), social determinants of health are a range of social, economic, political, and environmental factors that contribute to individuals' health conditions and disparities, such as inequalities in cancer screening [26][27][28]. Results show that patients who have poor social determinants of health, such as lack of insurance, low income, and living in a deprived neighborhood, are often less likely to adopt cancer screening [28][29][30]. Evidence from randomized clinical trials further indicates that, compared to patients with private insurance, patients with Medicaid or with no insurance received reduced benefits from the same intervention program [31].…”
Section: Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%