4.3 Article

Black:White disparities in lung cancer mortality in the 50 largest cities in the United States

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 908-916

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.10.003

关键词

Lung cancer; Racial disparities; Big cities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: This paper presents race-specific lung cancer mortality rates and the corresponding rate ratios for the 50 largest U.S. cities for the 5-year intervals 1990-1994 and 2005-2009. Methods: The 50 largest cities in the U.S. were the units of analysis. Numerator data were abstracted from national death files where the cause was malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung (lung cancer) (ICD-9 = 162 and LCD-10 = C33-C34). Population-based denominators were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau for 1990, 2000, and 2010. To measure the racial disparity, we calculated non-Hispanic Black:non-Hispanic White rate ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals for each 5-year period. We calculated correlation coefficients for 12 ecological variables and the RRs. Results: At the final time point (2005-2009), 15 RRs were less than 1, but only 8 significantly so while 29 RRs were greater than 1,16 of them significantly so. Of the 45 cities included in the analysis, 21 saw an increase in the Black:White RR between the first and second time points. Measures of socioeconomic status (SES) and inequalities therein were found to be associated with the RRs. Conclusion: This analysis revealed large disparities in Black:White lung cancer mortality in the U.S. and many of its largest cities during the period 1990-2009. The data demonstrate considerable variation in the degree of disparity across cities, even among cities within the same state. These data can inform and motivate local health officials to implement targeted prevention and treatment strategies where they are needed most, ultimately contributing to a reduction in the disparity in lung cancer mortality rates. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据