International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:268-274
© International Epidemiological Association 2001
Special Theme: Socioeconomic Differentials in Health |
Social class differences in lung cancer mortality: risk factor explanations using two Scottish cohort studies
a Department of Public Health, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.
b West of Scotland Cancer Surveillance Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.
c Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK.
d Department of General Practice, University of Glasgow, 4 Lancaster Crescent, Glasgow G12 0RR, UK.
e University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, 109, Observatory Street, Ann Arbor, MN 48109, USA.
Correspondence: Carole Hart, Department of Public Health, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK. E-mail: c.l.hart{at}udcf.gla.ac.uk
Abstract
Background The study investigated differences in lung cancer mortality risk between social classes.
Methods Twenty years of mortality follow-up were analysed in 7052 men and 8354 women from the Renfrew/Paisley general population study and 4021 working men from the Collaborative study.
Results More manual than non-manual men and women smoked, reported morning phlegm, had worse lung function and lived in more deprived areas. Lung cancer mortality rates were higher in manual than non-manual men and women. Significantly higher lung cancer mortality risks were seen for manual compared to non-manual workers when adjusting for age only and adjustment for smoking reduced these risks to 1.41 (95% CI : 1.12–1.77) for men in the Renfrew/Paisley study, 1.28 (95% CI : 0.94–1.75) for women in the Renfrew/Paisley study and 1.43 (95% CI : 1.02–2.01) for men in the Collaborative study. Adjustment for lung function, phlegm and deprivation category attenuated the risks which were of borderline significance for men in the Renfrew/Paisley study and non significant for women in the Renfrew/Paisley study and men in the Collaborative study. Adding extra socioeconomic variables, available in the Collaborative study only, reduced the difference between the manual and non-manual social classes completely.
Conclusions There is a difference in lung cancer risk between social classes, in addition to the effect of smoking. This can be explained by poor lung health, deprivation and poor socioeconomic conditions throughout life. As well as anti-smoking measures, reducing socioeconomic inequalities and targeting individuals with poor lung function for help with smoking cessation could help reduce future lung cancer incidence and mortality.
Keywords Lung cancer, social class, cohort studies
Accepted 7 June 2000
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Siahpush, G.K. Singh, P.R. Jones, and L.R. Timsina Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic variations in duration of smoking: results from 2003, 2006 and 2007 Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey J. Public Health Med., November 5, 2009; (2009) fdp104v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Menvielle, H. Boshuizen, A. E. Kunst, S. O. Dalton, P. Vineis, M. M. Bergmann, S. Hermann, P. Ferrari, O. Raaschou-Nielsen, A. Tjonneland, et al. The Role of Smoking and Diet in Explaining Educational Inequalities in Lung Cancer Incidence J Natl Cancer Inst, March 4, 2009; 101(5): 321 - 330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. M. Mannino COPD and Lung Cancer Have Come a Long Way ...Baby Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., July 15, 2007; 176(2): 108 - 109. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Melchior, L F Berkman, I Kawachi, N Krieger, M Zins, S Bonenfant, and M Goldberg Lifelong socioeconomic trajectory and premature mortality (35-65 years) in France: findings from the GAZEL Cohort Study. J Epidemiol Community Health, November 1, 2006; 60(11): 937 - 944. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. L Hart, P. L MacKinnon, G. C. Watt, M. N Upton, A. McConnachie, D. J Hole, G. D. Smith, C. R Gillis, and V. M Hawthorne The Midspan studies Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2005; 34(1): 28 - 34. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Shohaimi, A. Welch, S. Bingham, R. Luben, N. Day, N. Wareham, and K-T. Khaw Area deprivation predicts lung function independently of education and social class Eur. Respir. J., July 1, 2004; 24(1): 157 - 161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Jackson, L. D Kubzansky, S. Cohen, S. Weiss, and R. J Wright A matter of life and breath: childhood socioeconomic status is related to young adult pulmonary function in the CARDIA study Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2004; 33(2): 271 - 278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.K. Field and J.H. Youngson The Liverpool Lung Project: a molecular epidemiological study of early lung cancer detection Eur. Respir. J., August 1, 2002; 20(2): 464 - 479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.-M. N. Andersen Commentary: Social inequalities in risk of stillbirth--the price of success? Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2001; 30(6): 1301 - 1302. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. D. Smith The uses of 'Uses of Epidemiology' Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2001; 30(5): 1146 - 1155. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Blane Commentary: Socioeconomic health differentials Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2001; 30(2): 292 - 293. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M Najman Commentary: General or cause-specific factors in explanations of class inequalities in health Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2001; 30(2): 296 - 297. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|