Original Article

Socioeconomic Disparities in Prostate Cancer Mortality and the Impact of Geographic Scale

Authors: Neng Wan, MS, F. Benjamin Zhan, PhD, and Zhongliang Cai, PhD

Abstract

Objective: To examine socioeconomic disparities in prostate cancer mortality and to assess the scale effect on the results of the disparity analysis.


Methods: Using prostate cancer mortality data (N = 14,036) of Texas from 1996 to 2004, this study examines the variations of socioeconomic disparities in prostate cancer mortality across different geographic scales. Age-adjusted odds ratios are employed to reveal the disparities by single and composite socioeconomic indicators at county, census tract, and block group levels.


Results: The analysis shows that (1) disparities in prostate cancer mortality are significant for most socioeconomic indicators, (2) area-level socioeconomic indicators tend to reveal a less extent of disparity than individual-level indicators do, and (3) socioeconomic disparities in prostate cancer mortality at the census tract and block group levels are similar to each other but are completely different from those at the county level.


Conclusion: The selection of geographic scale and socioeconomic indicators affects the results of socioeconomic disparity analysis in prostate cancer mortality. Most census tract and block group level socioeconomic indicators are appropriate for analyzing disparities in prostate cancer mortality. County level socioeconomic indicators should be avoided if possible.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Albano JD, Ward E, Jemal A, et al. Cancer mortality in the United States by education level and race. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1384-1394.
 
2. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Geocoding and monitoring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter? The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:471-482.
 
3. Shipp MPL, Desmond R, Accortt N, et al. Population-based study of the geographic variation in colon cancer incidence in Alabama: relationship to socioeconomic status indicators and physician density. South Med J 2005;98:1076-1082.
 
4. Singh GK, Miller BA, Hankey BF, et al. Changing area socioeconomic patterns in US cancer mortality, 1950-1998: part I-all cancers among men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:904-915.
 
5. Cheng I, Witte JS, McClure LA, et al. Socioeconomic status and prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates among the diverse population of California. Cancer Causes Control 2009;20:1431-1440.
 
6. Chu KC, Miller BA, Springfield SA. Measures of racial/ethnic health disparities in cancer mortality rates and the influence of socioeconomic status. J Natl Med Assoc 2007;99:1092-1104.
 
7. Vinnakota S, Lam N. Socioeconomic inequality of cancer mortality in the United States: a spatial data mining approach. Int J Health Geogr 2006;5.
 
8. Roux AVD, Merkin SS, Hannan P, et al. Area characteristics, individual-level socioeconomic indicators, and smoking in young adults-the Coronary Artery Disease Risk Development in Young Adults Study. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:315-326.
 
9. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Race/ethnicity, gender, and monitoring socioeconomic gradients in health: a comparison of area-based socioeconomic measures-the public health disparities geocoding project. Am J Public Health 2003;93:1655-1671.
 
10. Piantadosi S, Byar DP, Green SB. The ecological fallacy. Am J Epidemiol 1988;5:893-904.
 
11. Roux AVD, Kiefe CI, Jacobs DR, et al. Area characteristics and individual-level socioeconomic position indicators in three population-based epidemiologic studies. Ann of Epidemiol 2001;11:395-405.
 
12. Schuurman N, Bell N, Dunn JR, et al. Deprivation indices, population health and geography: an evaluation of the spatial effectiveness of indices at multiple scales. J Urban Health 2007;84:591-603.
 
13. Gilligan T. Social disparities and prostate cancer: mapping the gaps in our knowledge. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:45-53.
 
14. US Census Bureau. Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), Census 2000.
 
15. Krieger N, Quesenberry C, Peng T, et al. Social class, race/ethnicity, and incidence of breast, cervix, colon, lung, and prostate cancer among Asian, black, Hispanic, and white residents of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1988-92 (United States). Cancer Causes Control 1999;10:525-537.
 
16. SPSS for Windows. Version 16.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc; 2008.
 
17. Winkleby MA, Cubbin C. Influence of individual and neighborhood socioeconomic status on mortality among black, Mexican-American, and white women and men in the United States. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:444-452.
 
18. Geronimus AT, Bound J. Use of census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence from national samples. Am J Epidemiol 1998;148:475-486.
 
19. Soobader MJ, LeClere FB, Hadden W, et al. Using aggregate geographic data to proxy individual socioeconomic status: does size matter? Am J Public Health 2001;91:632-636.
 
20. Subramanian SV, Jones K, Kaddour A, et al. Revisiting Robinson: the perils of individualistic and ecologic fallacy. Int J Epidemiol 2009;38:342-360.
 
21. Robert SA, Strombom I, Trentham-Dietz A, et al. Socioeconomic risk factors for breast cancer-distinguishing individual- and community-level effects. Epidemiology 2004;15:442-450.