Socioeconomic Status (SES) Role in Cancer - Research Paper Example

Socioeconomic status (SES) role in Cancer Introduction Socio-economic status refers to the economic and financial status of a person or group of people compared to others. The status is determined by considering varied factors such as education, occupation, as well as people’s income. Using these factors, social status assumes three key categories including high, middle and well off people. Low income and education have proved to be major determinants of mental and physical health problems so far experienced by people globally. In most cases, the poor working environment in which people reside and operate on daily basis immensely lead to varied serious health predicaments. People with low SES also have low health statuses because majority cannot afford better medical attention (Louwman, Aarts, Houterman, Lenthe, Coebergh & Janssen-Heijnen, 2010). This has contributed to minimal survival rates among cancer patients comprising this category though cancer discussed in this study is also prevalent among other people who are well off (Amanda, Caitlin & Jeff, 2013). Economically and educationally disadvantaged cancer patients may require treatment programs that include education on treatment and conformity, even after making an initial diagnosis and commencing treatment. All this is evident from researches conducted to study the effect of SES in different types of cancer such as colon cancer, rectal cancer (Jason, 2008) as well as breast cancer (Carol & Vincent, 2013). Since SES relates to survival probability of various prognostic variables, it should be included in the databases of clinical trial groups to ensure effectiveness of new therapies. This study seeks to highlight how low SEO is key contributor to both worsening and prevalence of cancer types. Based on study conducted by Aarts, Houterman, Van Lenthe, Coebergh & Janssen-Heijnen (2010), there is a 50% higher prevalence of life shortening chronic conditions among cancer patients with low socio- economic status. This is evident from the Population based cancer registry study among 72,153 patients diagnosed between 1997-2006 (Louwman, Aarts, Houterman, Van Lenthe, Coebergh & Janssen-Heijnen, 2010). According to the study, 50% of Low SES patients had a higher risk of developing comorbidity compared to high SES patients.This means that the patients have a higher risk of developing other ailments or conditions in addition to cancer. Such comorbidity included diseases such as diabetes, gastrointestinal disease, tuberculosis, as well as cardiovascular disease (Louwman, Aarts, Houterman, Van Lenthe, Coebergh & Janssen-Heijnen, 2010). This disease has contributed to minimal survival rate. From the findings, it was evident that smoking had become prevalent among people from low SES. Smoking contributes to cancer of the lungs, stomach, bladder as well as pharynx and oesophagus (Louwman, Aarts, Houterman, Van Lenthe, Coebergh & Janssen-Heijnen, 2010). Not only has it contributed to cancer but also to Chronic Obstructive pulmonary diseases and cardiovascular diseases. This explains the low survival rates among low SES cancer patients stirred by comorbidity. Besides, once they contract these maladies end up not having adequate financial muscles to afford their respective medical care. This is evident especially in the developing states whereby some go untested for long until their conditions worsen to chronic levels. Low socio-economic status has also contributed to worse survival rates among children with cancer. Research carried out involved reviewing Ovid Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL data from inception to December 2012 (Gupta, Wilejto, Pole, Guttmann & Sung 2014). Using this data, the review followed the PRISMA format. In low and middle-income country, low SES was associated with minimal survival chances and the majority of these associations could be proven from the statistics. In 52 associations between socio-economic factors and outcome among high-income country children, 38 found low SES to be associated with worse survival and 15 could be proven statistically. Among the 14 who remained and could associate worse survival with high SES, only one was statistically significant (Gupta, Wilejto, Pole, Guttmann & Sung 2014). This explains how worse survival rates is prevalent among low SES. From the study, it was evident that uninsured status was statistically associated with heightened inferior survival. This is because people from low SES hardly afford good and complete insurance cover for the children compared to high SES. Measures for SES were not significantly associated with income but with maternal possession, paternal education as well as insurance status (Gupta, Wilejto, Pole, Guttmann & Sung 2014). In HIC, measures of access to health care are more relevant than measures of income. Moreover, different measures of SES are likely to be relevant in countries with universal access to health care than in those without. Compliance will have a greater effect upon outcome in malignancies in the sense that outpatient oral chemotherapy plays a major role than those specifically involving in inpatient therapy (Gupta, Wilejto, Pole, Guttmann & Sung 2014). According to Le et al. (2008), colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most deadly disease in the United States. Although studies show a decline in the mortality rate of the disease due to advanced medical screening technology such as Colonoscopy that is capable of minimizing the level of mortality by 50 %(Le et al., 2008). Although the US government’s continuous campaign to minimize CRC’s mortality rate is a recommendable job, the disease is still far from over. This is because according to research CRC mostly affects people of the African-American origin. The research further stated that of all Afro-Americans diagnosed with colorectal cancer, 95% had higher chances of dying compared to other races (Le et al., 2008). Analysis of the research determined that the reason why Afro-Americans were the most affected by this chronic ailment is that they ranked at a much lower socioeconomic status (SES) compared to other races. The low SES has been associated with several factors such as poor health status. Poor medical health is normally caused by factors such as unemployment because such people do not go for earlier diagnosis. When one is diagnosed with the disease at an earlier stage, there is usually higher chance of survival unlike if diagnosed with the disease at a much later period when the disease is in its final stage (Le et al., 2008). Apart from poor health status, low SES has is also linked to poor understanding of proper healthy living requirements. Different methods of treatment also play a huge role in the high rate of mortality among Afro-Americans. This is because according to research, many Afro-Americans refuse to undergo surgery (Le et al., 2008). One of the reasons why most of the Afro-Americans never undergo surgery is because they less recommended it. According to Le et al., one of the measures that need to be taken in a move to curb CRC, especially among Afro- Americans and Hispanics is education on the importance of health (Le et al., 2008). Just like CRC, breast cancer is also one deadly disease in the United States. Research also shows that SES plays a role in the outcomes of cancer (Parice & Caggiano, 2013). According to Parice and Caggiano (2013), women in their first stage of cancer had no racial disparity regardless of their SES. Numerous attempts have been made in a move to untangle the interplay that normally exists between racism and SES. This is evident due to the high number of conflicting results on most of the previous studies conducted on the social and racial disparities in relation to breast cancer (Parice & Caggiano, 2013). Correlational studies on SES have also resulted to more questions; this is because a differential tumor is not plausible due to the lack of differences in mortality risks in any race or ethnicity during the first stage of breast cancer (Parice & Caggiano, 2013). Conversely, in a much higher stage of the disease, there was an increase in the rate of mortality among women of Hispanic and Afro-American origin compared to their white counterparts. Therefore, it is evident that the mortality level women suffering from breast cancer is determined by either SES or racial differences (Parice & Caggiano, 2013). Although SES plays a huge role in the analysis of mortality among Americans, it does not give proper explanation on its relation with racial disparity in addition to societal and genetic factors. Socioeconomic status influence some key factors related to health. With high cost of health care, individuals with low socioeconomic income cannot afford to meet the costly health maintenance. Persons suffering from cancer are likely to experience adverse effects of disease that are costly to treat or therapy to suppress effects of such diseases. For example cancer, chronic stress associated with low socioeconomic income increases mortality and morbidity. Low socioeconomic status will accelerate the effects of chronic ailments that will cost a lot that is against the income of the individuals. According to the study, cancer prevalence and income have a close relationship, because, its effects are attributed to both education and the socioeconomic income (Clegg, et. al, 2009) The study also shows that, cancer patients with low income have low survival chances. The low survival chances are associated with late diagnosis of the diseases. Since the disease cannot be prevented at its early stage, the cost involved in diagnosis is also high. Effects that come along with low income are major, because, of late cancer detection that makes it hard to prevent and treat the disease (Parrish, 2013). This is supported by the fact the individuals cannot afford the cost involved in cancer screening. Such persons may end up living with the disease unknowingly. The research shows that education status influences cancer prevalence to a significant level. For example, the ratio of men with less than a high school education to those with a high school education with lung cancer shows a sight disparity. Lung cancer is high amongst those individuals with less than high school education (Parrish, 2013). Relationship evident in low socioeconomic to high incidences of cancer is related to high cost incurred in the treatment of the disease. Medications to be undertaken when one has to be diagnosed for cancer are expensive and require regular medical check-up. The low socioeconomic income hinders cancer patients from seeing the necessary doctors because of the cost involved. In addition, the research also shows that high number of individuals with low socioeconomic status cannot afford to have their own personal doctors (2013, p. 12). Conclusion Socioeconomic status is responsible for some of the increased prevalence of cancer. Disparity extends even wider when relationship is assessed to low socioeconomic in particular low income. Most common health disparity is associated with socioeconomic disparity. In order to reduce social economic disparities in health, it is important to create policies that address the components of socioeconomic status. To counter effect of low socioeconomic status on health, necessary changes have to be made on distribution of income. Availability of adequate income will provide means for obtaining health care. Higher incomes have the ability provide better housing, nutrition, recreation and schooling. Examples the components of the economic status include education, income and occupation. Education is the fundamental socioeconomic factors. Any method adopted in correcting diseases associated with low socioeconomic has to take into consideration the need to improve education that creates awareness in regards to cancer. This will help reduce incidences of cancer caused by low socioeconomic. References Clegg, L. et al. (2009). Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Cancer Causes Control, 20(4): 10.1007/s10552-008-9256-0. DOI:  10.1007/s10552-008-9256-0. Dunn, B. K., Agurs-collins, T., Browne, D., Lubet, R., & Johnson, K. A. (2010). Health disparities in breast cancer: Biology meets socioeconomic status. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 121(2), 281-92. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010- 0827-x Gupta, S., Wilejto, M., Pole, Guttmann, A. & Sung, L. (2014). Low Socioeconomic Status Is Associated with Worse Survival in Children with Cancer: A Systematic Review. PLoS One9(2)DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089482. Le, H., Ziogas, A.,Lipkin, M.S. & Zell, A.J. (2008). Effects of Socioeconomic Status and Treatment Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Survival. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 17:1950-1962. Louwman, W. J., Aarts, M. J., Houterman, S., Van Lenthe, Coebergh, J. W. W. & Janssen- Heijnen, M. L. G. (2010). A 50% higher prevalence of life-shortening chronic conditions among cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. British Journal of Cancer, 103(11): 1742–1748. Parice, A.C. & Caggiano, V. (2013). Disparities in race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status: risk of mortality of breast cancer patients in the California Cancer Registry, 2000– 2010. BMC Cancer 2013, 13(449) DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-449. Parrish, A., Mason, C., & Harris, J. (2013.). Low Socioeconomic Status and Cancer Prevention in the American Cancer Society Great West Division. Retrieved from Read More