How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: scientific, clinical and social arguments (abstract)

How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: scientific, clinical and social arguments.

Lehoux P, Denis JL, Rock M, Hivon M, Tailliez S.

Department of Health Administration, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. pascale.lehoux@umontreal.ca

Abstract

Medical specialists play a pivotal role in health innovation evaluation and policy making. Their influence derives not only from their expertise, but also from their social status and the power of their professional organisations. Little is known, however, about how medical specialists determine what makes a health innovation desirable and why. Our qualitative study investigated the views of 28 medical specialists and experts from Quebec and Ontario (Canada) ...cont'd (not specific to ovarian cancer)

Racial differences in stage at diagnosis and survival from epithelial ovarian cancer: A fundamental cause of disease approach

Social Science & Medicine

abstract:

Associations between race, socioeconomic status (SES) and health outcomes have been well established. One of the ways in which race and SES affect health is by influencing one’s access to resources, which confers ability to avoid or mitigate adverse outcomes. The fundamental cause of disease approach argues that when a new screening tool is introduced, individuals with greater resources tend to have better access to the innovation, thus benefiting from early detection and leading to better survival.  

Conversely, when there is no established screening tool, racial and SES differences in early detection may be less pronounced.

Most ovarian cancer is diagnosed at advanced stages, because of the lack of an effective screening tool and few early symptoms. However, once detected, racial differences may still be observed in mortality and survival outcomes. We examined the racial differences in diagnosis and survival among ovarian cancer cases diagnosed during 1994–1998, in Cook County, Illinois (N = 351). There were no racial differences in the stage at diagnosis: 51.7% of white and 52.9% of black women were diagnosed at later stages (III and IV). Only age was associated with the stage at diagnosis. Tumor characteristics also did not differ between white and black women. Compared to white women, black women were less likely to be married, less educated, more frequently used genital powder, had tubal ligation, and resided in higher poverty census tracts. As of December 31, 2005, 44.3% of white and 54.5% of black women had died of ovarian cancer. Controlling for known confounding variables, the hazard ratio for ovarian cancer death between black and white women was 2.2. The findings show that fundamental cause perspective provides a potential framework to explore subtleties in racial disparities, with which broader social causes may be accounted for in explaining post diagnosis racial differences.

A Comparison of Quality-of-Life Domains and Clinical Factors in Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

CONCLUSION:
Ovarian cancer patients have decreased QOL in physical, functional, and emotional domains; however, they may compensate with increased social support. At the time of diagnosis and treatment, patients' QOL is affected by inherent characteristics. Assessment of treatment outcomes should take into account the effect of these independent variables.

abstract: Ovarian cancer: predictors of early-stage diagnosis

Conclusion
These findings suggest that, in addition to tumor biology, disparities in access to care may have a significant effect on the timely diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer

open access: The Canadian Facts from the Social Determinents of Health perspective - University of York

Social Determinants of Health:
The Canadian Facts
Juha Mikkonen and Dennis Raphael
Published in May 2010. ISBN 978-0-9683484-1-3

Summary

The primary factors that shape the health of Canadians are not medical treatments or lifestyle choices but rather the living conditions they experience. These conditions have come to be known as the social determinants of health. This information – based on decades of research and hundreds of studies in Canada and elsewhere – is unfamiliar to most Canadians. Canadians are largely unaware that our health is shaped by how income and wealth is distributed, whether or not we are employed and if so, the working conditions we experience.

Our health is also determined by the health and social services we receive, and our ability to obtain quality education, food and housing, among other factors. And contrary to the assumption that Canadians have personal control over these factors, in most cases these living conditions are – for better or worse – imposed upon us by the quality of the communities, housing situations, work settings, health and social service agencies, and educational institutions with which we interact.

Improving the health of Canadians requires we think about health and its determinants in a more sophisticated manner than has been the case to date. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts considers 14 social determinants of health:

1. Income and Income Distribution
2. Education
3. Unemployment and Job Security
4. Employment and Working Conditions
5. Early Childhood Development
6. Food Insecurity
7. Housing
8. Social Exclusion
9. Social Safety Network
10. Health Services
11. Aboriginal Status
12. Gender
13. Race
14. Disability

The publication outlines why they are important; how Canada is doing in addressing them; and what can be done to improve their quality. The purpose of the document is to provide promote greater awareness of the social determinants of health and the development and implementation of public policies that improve their quality.

Cancer prevention: major initiatives and looking into the future