There is no such a thing as a 'biological' basis for cancer disparities: A call to end misreporting of the ultimate determinants of health outcomes.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Tumori Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-09 DOI:10.1177/03008916231196369
Dario Trapani, Fabio Girardi, Saverio Cinieri, Giuseppe Curigliano
{"title":"There is no such a thing as a '<i>biological</i>' basis for cancer disparities: A call to end misreporting of the ultimate determinants of health outcomes.","authors":"Dario Trapani, Fabio Girardi, Saverio Cinieri, Giuseppe Curigliano","doi":"10.1177/03008916231196369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Improved strategies of cancer prevention and control have resulted in tangible benefits for patients with cancer. Disparities in outcome have been reported as a result of inequal access to health care. Historically, differences in health outcomes at population level have been reported according to key characteristics, including race, ethnicity and, more recently, ancestry. These population descriptors have been used to display the differences in the outcome and highlight actionable areas of health disparities, through policy and population health interventions. Yet, they have been commonly mis-intended as ultimate determinants of health outcomes, as recapitulating intrinsic biological differences. A plethora of past literature has described \"biological\" differences in patients belonging to a specific racial, ethnical or ancestral group, with certain cancers - commonly overlooking the social and economic contextures. The attention has ultimately focused on the existence of intrinsic differences and biological reasons, as opposed to social and economic determinants of disparities in the outcome in disadvantaged or excluded communities, thus nurturing double stigma. In our editorial, we evaluate some key roots of racial attitudes in displaying patient outcomes in oncology epidemiological studies, and call to report ultimate determinants of health - that are, primarily social and economic determinants.</p>","PeriodicalId":23349,"journal":{"name":"Tumori","volume":" ","pages":"82-87"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tumori","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03008916231196369","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Improved strategies of cancer prevention and control have resulted in tangible benefits for patients with cancer. Disparities in outcome have been reported as a result of inequal access to health care. Historically, differences in health outcomes at population level have been reported according to key characteristics, including race, ethnicity and, more recently, ancestry. These population descriptors have been used to display the differences in the outcome and highlight actionable areas of health disparities, through policy and population health interventions. Yet, they have been commonly mis-intended as ultimate determinants of health outcomes, as recapitulating intrinsic biological differences. A plethora of past literature has described "biological" differences in patients belonging to a specific racial, ethnical or ancestral group, with certain cancers - commonly overlooking the social and economic contextures. The attention has ultimately focused on the existence of intrinsic differences and biological reasons, as opposed to social and economic determinants of disparities in the outcome in disadvantaged or excluded communities, thus nurturing double stigma. In our editorial, we evaluate some key roots of racial attitudes in displaying patient outcomes in oncology epidemiological studies, and call to report ultimate determinants of health - that are, primarily social and economic determinants.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
癌症差异的 "生物学 "基础并不存在:呼吁停止误报健康结果的最终决定因素。
癌症预防和控制战略的改进为癌症患者带来了实实在在的好处。据报道,由于获得医疗保健的机会不平等,导致了结果上的差异。从历史上看,人口层面的健康结果差异是根据关键特征报告的,包括种族、民族以及最近的血统。这些人口描述被用来显示结果的差异,并通过政策和人口健康干预措施来突出健康差异的可操作领域。然而,它们通常被误认为是健康结果的最终决定因素,是内在生物差异的再现。过去的大量文献描述了特定种族、人种或祖先群体患者在罹患某些癌症时的 "生物 "差异,但通常忽略了社会和经济背景。人们的注意力最终集中在内在差异和生物学原因的存在上,而不是社会和经济因素决定了弱势或受排斥群体的结果差异,从而滋生了双重鄙视。在我们的社论中,我们评估了在肿瘤流行病学研究中显示患者结果的种族态度的一些关键根源,并呼吁报告健康的最终决定因素--主要是社会和经济决定因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Tumori
Tumori 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Tumori Journal covers all aspects of cancer science and clinical practice with a strong focus on prevention, translational medicine and clinically relevant reports. We invite the publication of randomized trials and reports on large, consecutive patient series that investigate the real impact of new techniques, drugs and devices inday-to-day clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Clinical difference between solitary and multiple pulmonary adenocarcinoma nodules. MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and Lynch Syndrome: When to test for constitutional epimutations of MLH1 gene? Efficacy and safety of PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Factors influencing the colorectal surveillance adherence in Lynch Syndrome: A retrospective monocentric study. Implications and mechanisms of O-GlcNAcylation in cancer therapy resistance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1