癌症治疗的差异:任重而道远。

IF 503.1 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians Pub Date : 2023-11-14 DOI:10.3322/caac.21822
Shail Maingi MD, Don S. Dizon MD
{"title":"癌症治疗的差异:任重而道远。","authors":"Shail Maingi MD,&nbsp;Don S. Dizon MD","doi":"10.3322/caac.21822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 2023 American Cancer Society (ACS) report on cancer disparities highlights the persistent issues related to inequities in cancer incidences and outcomes.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Black individuals continue to be diagnosed at higher incidence rates than White individuals with multiple cancers, including colorectal, pancreatic, lung, prostate, and cervical cancers. The report also reveals that Black patients with the same cancers as White patients have a 16%–20% higher mortality rate.</p><p>These findings highlight that disparities persist and how difficult the challenges are to address them, particularly when they cannot be attributed easily to any one factor. In the 2023 ACS report, for example, the authors looked at the impact of education on cancer mortality rates and found that those with ≤12 years of education had a 2.5 times higher rate of mortality than those with ≥16 years of education. The protective effect of years of education, however, had less effect on mortality among Black individuals with cancer, who continued to have a higher mortality rate compared with White individuals across all educational thresholds. Therefore, the higher cancer incidence rates are multiplicative for Black individuals who have multiple identities associated with worse outcomes.</p><p>The finding that Black individuals who are highly educated and still have higher cancer mortality rates brings up two important issues. The first is the devastating and pervasive impact of structural racism and minority status on the health of Black individuals regardless of socioeconomic strides and success. The authors note that these manifest as a lack of access to high-quality services, financial burdens that limit treatment, or biases that prevent screening and preventative efforts, among others.</p><p>Implicit bias on a provider and staff level can also contribute to differences in the quality of cancer care being delivered and exacerbate medical mistrust. For example, Enzinger and colleagues evaluated access to opioids among people on Medicare who were dying of cancer (<i>n</i> = 318,549) in the 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive any opioid, and, if given, they were more likely to receive a lower daily and a lower total dose. Black men also reportedly were more likely to undergo urine drug screening. According to this report, the disparities were not attenuated by adjustments for socioeconomic factors (e.g., rurality, community-level factors). The second important issue regarding access to opioids is that it emphasizes the importance of applying an intersectional lens to disparities work in order to make progress, which is something that is missing from the current analyses.</p><p><i>Intersectionality</i> was originally used by Kimberlé Crenshaw in Black feminist theory as a critical framework to understand power and oppression that takes into account the multiple social categories one identifies with and interacts through.<span><sup>3, 4</sup></span> In medicine, as shown in these publications, it goes beyond race and includes gender, location, and socioeconomic markers (e.g., education, insurance). For example, take cervical cancer screening rates in the United States. Chen et al. showed that, compared with US-born White women, immigrant women across race and ethnic backgrounds had lower screening rates. Access to care and socioeconomic barriers were noted in the immigrant Hispanic community, but lack of awareness/education about human papillomavirus appeared to be the primary barrier for immigrant women from White and Asian backgrounds.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Both the 2023 ACS report and the article by Chen et al. show that, although important findings are uncovered when any one factor is evaluated in isolation, the real work is addressing what is at the root of those differences, and we cannot effectively intervene to mitigate the disparities.</p><p>Another example of the importance using intersectional lenses in cancer disparities work involved sexual and gender minority (SGM; also known as LGBTQ+) individuals. Collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data is largely missing in the databases used in this report (i.e., the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the National Center for Health Statistics). SGM people are less likely to be offered appropriate cancer screening despite having a higher risk of multiple cancers, including breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and lung. In addition, across the cancer continuum, they receive a lower quality of care, contributing to more anxiety and depression during survivorship, and they even have higher rates of cancer recurrence. Multiple studies indicate worse outcomes for SGM people of color, including in palliative care settings, in which Black and Hispanic SGM patients were two to four times more likely than their White SGM counterparts to report discrimination.<span><sup>6</sup></span> Current recommendations and best practices include collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data,<span><sup>7, 8</sup></span> but current political environments focused on banning gender-affirming care may put this at risk, putting the movement to address SGM disparities to the test.</p><p>Also problematic is using <i>race</i> as the primary characteristic around which we design efforts to effectively address cancer disparities; this is inadequate. In part, this is because race is a social construct fundamentally informed by social perceptions rather than by scientific foundation.<span><sup>9</sup></span> Ultimately, it is a subjective descriptor of a phenotype that is a poor substitute for genotype. This point was made in an early onset lung cancer study that included enrolled volunteers (<i>n</i> = 555 self-reported Caucasian/non-Hispanic individuals and <i>n</i> = 191 self-reported Black individuals), all of whom underwent genotyping that included a 13 short tandem repeat locus previously established to characterize individual ancestry.<span><sup>10</sup></span> Among the study participants, European ancestry was found to correlate poorly with self-described race, with significant overlap in individual ancestry across Black and White self-described volunteers. Conflating racial differences with biologic differences and inaccurately/incompletely measuring racial and ethnic differences complicates this work.</p><p>Fortunately, both national and local programs are emerging to address disparities, and many of them are described by the authors of the 2023 ACS report. Still, much more work is needed. Not only do we have to creatively challenge our sources of descriptive data, data collection, and data accuracy, as indicated above; we also need to include community voices and develop a diverse workforce that reflects all of our surrounding communities.</p><p>We cannot effectively address disparities in cancer outcomes in a vacuum. The factors at play are structural, embedded within society over generations. However, we can do our part by ensuring community engagement in our efforts, listening to what those we seek to help tell us are the issues, and helping define the priorities to achieve equity. These factors are all essential. Providing opportunities across diverse populations to explore medicine and oncology early on may help to inspire a diverse workforce. Most of all, engaging with cultural humility from a systems standpoint and holding those who work within it to ethical standards are paramount. The related critical need to address bias in the workforce requires evidence-based interventions that are focused on lasting change that must occur beyond any one mandatory training module. Finally, reflecting on our own beliefs and how they affect our behaviors and attitudes, the care we provide, and the words we write in patient charts and elsewhere, is critical. All of this matters—from the national, to the institutional, to the individual level.</p><p>Ultimately, intersectional analyses can us help address the difference between describing <i>disparities</i> and addressing <i>inequities</i>.<span><sup>9</sup></span> Making the effort to start collecting data that accurately reflect the lived experiences of our patients with cancer requires cultural humility and meaningful community engagement. This will allow us to move from describing disparities to developing evidence-based programs for all of our patients to achieve equitable care and, as this ACS study suggests, give everyone an equal chance to survive cancer.</p><p>Shail Maingi reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Gilead Sciences/Gilead Foundation; Lilly USA, LLC; Merck; and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Don S. Dizon reports personal fees by Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Kronos Biotech, and Clovis. He also reports institutional finding by Bristol Myers Squibb. All of this is outside of the submitted work.</p>","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":503.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.21822","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disparities in cancer care: A long way to go\",\"authors\":\"Shail Maingi MD,&nbsp;Don S. Dizon MD\",\"doi\":\"10.3322/caac.21822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The 2023 American Cancer Society (ACS) report on cancer disparities highlights the persistent issues related to inequities in cancer incidences and outcomes.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Black individuals continue to be diagnosed at higher incidence rates than White individuals with multiple cancers, including colorectal, pancreatic, lung, prostate, and cervical cancers. The report also reveals that Black patients with the same cancers as White patients have a 16%–20% higher mortality rate.</p><p>These findings highlight that disparities persist and how difficult the challenges are to address them, particularly when they cannot be attributed easily to any one factor. In the 2023 ACS report, for example, the authors looked at the impact of education on cancer mortality rates and found that those with ≤12 years of education had a 2.5 times higher rate of mortality than those with ≥16 years of education. The protective effect of years of education, however, had less effect on mortality among Black individuals with cancer, who continued to have a higher mortality rate compared with White individuals across all educational thresholds. Therefore, the higher cancer incidence rates are multiplicative for Black individuals who have multiple identities associated with worse outcomes.</p><p>The finding that Black individuals who are highly educated and still have higher cancer mortality rates brings up two important issues. The first is the devastating and pervasive impact of structural racism and minority status on the health of Black individuals regardless of socioeconomic strides and success. The authors note that these manifest as a lack of access to high-quality services, financial burdens that limit treatment, or biases that prevent screening and preventative efforts, among others.</p><p>Implicit bias on a provider and staff level can also contribute to differences in the quality of cancer care being delivered and exacerbate medical mistrust. For example, Enzinger and colleagues evaluated access to opioids among people on Medicare who were dying of cancer (<i>n</i> = 318,549) in the 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive any opioid, and, if given, they were more likely to receive a lower daily and a lower total dose. Black men also reportedly were more likely to undergo urine drug screening. According to this report, the disparities were not attenuated by adjustments for socioeconomic factors (e.g., rurality, community-level factors). The second important issue regarding access to opioids is that it emphasizes the importance of applying an intersectional lens to disparities work in order to make progress, which is something that is missing from the current analyses.</p><p><i>Intersectionality</i> was originally used by Kimberlé Crenshaw in Black feminist theory as a critical framework to understand power and oppression that takes into account the multiple social categories one identifies with and interacts through.<span><sup>3, 4</sup></span> In medicine, as shown in these publications, it goes beyond race and includes gender, location, and socioeconomic markers (e.g., education, insurance). For example, take cervical cancer screening rates in the United States. Chen et al. showed that, compared with US-born White women, immigrant women across race and ethnic backgrounds had lower screening rates. Access to care and socioeconomic barriers were noted in the immigrant Hispanic community, but lack of awareness/education about human papillomavirus appeared to be the primary barrier for immigrant women from White and Asian backgrounds.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Both the 2023 ACS report and the article by Chen et al. show that, although important findings are uncovered when any one factor is evaluated in isolation, the real work is addressing what is at the root of those differences, and we cannot effectively intervene to mitigate the disparities.</p><p>Another example of the importance using intersectional lenses in cancer disparities work involved sexual and gender minority (SGM; also known as LGBTQ+) individuals. Collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data is largely missing in the databases used in this report (i.e., the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the National Center for Health Statistics). SGM people are less likely to be offered appropriate cancer screening despite having a higher risk of multiple cancers, including breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and lung. In addition, across the cancer continuum, they receive a lower quality of care, contributing to more anxiety and depression during survivorship, and they even have higher rates of cancer recurrence. Multiple studies indicate worse outcomes for SGM people of color, including in palliative care settings, in which Black and Hispanic SGM patients were two to four times more likely than their White SGM counterparts to report discrimination.<span><sup>6</sup></span> Current recommendations and best practices include collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data,<span><sup>7, 8</sup></span> but current political environments focused on banning gender-affirming care may put this at risk, putting the movement to address SGM disparities to the test.</p><p>Also problematic is using <i>race</i> as the primary characteristic around which we design efforts to effectively address cancer disparities; this is inadequate. In part, this is because race is a social construct fundamentally informed by social perceptions rather than by scientific foundation.<span><sup>9</sup></span> Ultimately, it is a subjective descriptor of a phenotype that is a poor substitute for genotype. This point was made in an early onset lung cancer study that included enrolled volunteers (<i>n</i> = 555 self-reported Caucasian/non-Hispanic individuals and <i>n</i> = 191 self-reported Black individuals), all of whom underwent genotyping that included a 13 short tandem repeat locus previously established to characterize individual ancestry.<span><sup>10</sup></span> Among the study participants, European ancestry was found to correlate poorly with self-described race, with significant overlap in individual ancestry across Black and White self-described volunteers. Conflating racial differences with biologic differences and inaccurately/incompletely measuring racial and ethnic differences complicates this work.</p><p>Fortunately, both national and local programs are emerging to address disparities, and many of them are described by the authors of the 2023 ACS report. Still, much more work is needed. Not only do we have to creatively challenge our sources of descriptive data, data collection, and data accuracy, as indicated above; we also need to include community voices and develop a diverse workforce that reflects all of our surrounding communities.</p><p>We cannot effectively address disparities in cancer outcomes in a vacuum. The factors at play are structural, embedded within society over generations. However, we can do our part by ensuring community engagement in our efforts, listening to what those we seek to help tell us are the issues, and helping define the priorities to achieve equity. These factors are all essential. Providing opportunities across diverse populations to explore medicine and oncology early on may help to inspire a diverse workforce. Most of all, engaging with cultural humility from a systems standpoint and holding those who work within it to ethical standards are paramount. The related critical need to address bias in the workforce requires evidence-based interventions that are focused on lasting change that must occur beyond any one mandatory training module. Finally, reflecting on our own beliefs and how they affect our behaviors and attitudes, the care we provide, and the words we write in patient charts and elsewhere, is critical. All of this matters—from the national, to the institutional, to the individual level.</p><p>Ultimately, intersectional analyses can us help address the difference between describing <i>disparities</i> and addressing <i>inequities</i>.<span><sup>9</sup></span> Making the effort to start collecting data that accurately reflect the lived experiences of our patients with cancer requires cultural humility and meaningful community engagement. This will allow us to move from describing disparities to developing evidence-based programs for all of our patients to achieve equitable care and, as this ACS study suggests, give everyone an equal chance to survive cancer.</p><p>Shail Maingi reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Gilead Sciences/Gilead Foundation; Lilly USA, LLC; Merck; and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Don S. Dizon reports personal fees by Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Kronos Biotech, and Clovis. He also reports institutional finding by Bristol Myers Squibb. All of this is outside of the submitted work.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":503.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.21822\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21822\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21822","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

6 当前的建议和最佳做法包括收集性取向和性别认同数据,7, 8 但当前的政治环境侧重于禁止性别确认护理,这可能会使这一工作面临风险,从而使解决 SGM 差异的运动面临考验。部分原因在于种族是一种社会建构,从根本上说是由社会观念而非科学依据所决定的。9 归根结底,种族是一种表型的主观描述,不能很好地替代基因型。一项早发性肺癌研究表明了这一点,该研究包括入选的志愿者(n = 555 名自我报告的高加索/非西班牙裔个人和 n = 191 名自我报告的黑人个人),他们都接受了基因分型,其中包括一个 13 个短串联重复位点,该位点之前已被确定为个人祖先的特征。10 在研究参与者中,发现欧洲人的祖先与自我描述的种族相关性很低,黑人和白人自我描述的志愿者的个人祖先有显著重叠。将种族差异与生物差异混为一谈,以及不准确/不全面地测量种族和民族差异,都使这项工作变得更加复杂。幸运的是,国家和地方都在制定计划来解决差异问题,《2023 年 ACS 报告》的作者对其中的许多计划进行了描述。不过,我们还需要做更多的工作。如上所述,我们不仅要创造性地挑战描述性数据的来源、数据收集和数据准确性;我们还需要吸纳社区的声音,并培养一支反映周边所有社区的多元化员工队伍。我们无法在真空中有效解决癌症结果的差异问题,这些因素是结构性的,是几代人的社会根基。但是,我们可以尽自己的一份力量,确保社区参与我们的工作,倾听我们希望帮助的人对问题的看法,帮助确定实现公平的优先事项。这些因素都至关重要。在早期为不同人群提供探索医学和肿瘤学的机会可能有助于激励多元化的员工队伍。最重要的是,从系统的角度出发,以文化谦逊的态度参与其中,并要求在其中工作的人员遵守道德标准,这一点至关重要。与此相关的是,解决员工队伍中的偏见问题亟需以证据为基础的干预措施,这些措施的重点是持久的改变,而这种改变必须超越任何一个强制性的培训模块。最后,反思我们自己的信仰以及这些信仰如何影响我们的行为和态度、我们提供的护理以及我们在病历和其他地方书写的文字也至关重要。所有这些都很重要--从国家层面、机构层面到个人层面。最终,交叉分析可以帮助我们解决描述差异和解决不平等之间的差异。9 要努力开始收集能准确反映癌症患者生活经历的数据,就需要文化谦逊和有意义的社区参与。这将使我们从描述差异转向为所有患者制定循证计划,以实现公平护理,正如 ACS 的这项研究表明的那样,让每个人都有平等的机会在癌症中存活下来。Don S. Dizon报告了阿斯利康、葛兰素史克、Kronos Biotech和Clovis的个人酬金。他还报告了布里斯托尔-迈尔斯-施贵宝公司(Bristol Myers Squibb)的机构资助。所有这些都不在提交的工作范围之内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Disparities in cancer care: A long way to go

The 2023 American Cancer Society (ACS) report on cancer disparities highlights the persistent issues related to inequities in cancer incidences and outcomes.1 Black individuals continue to be diagnosed at higher incidence rates than White individuals with multiple cancers, including colorectal, pancreatic, lung, prostate, and cervical cancers. The report also reveals that Black patients with the same cancers as White patients have a 16%–20% higher mortality rate.

These findings highlight that disparities persist and how difficult the challenges are to address them, particularly when they cannot be attributed easily to any one factor. In the 2023 ACS report, for example, the authors looked at the impact of education on cancer mortality rates and found that those with ≤12 years of education had a 2.5 times higher rate of mortality than those with ≥16 years of education. The protective effect of years of education, however, had less effect on mortality among Black individuals with cancer, who continued to have a higher mortality rate compared with White individuals across all educational thresholds. Therefore, the higher cancer incidence rates are multiplicative for Black individuals who have multiple identities associated with worse outcomes.

The finding that Black individuals who are highly educated and still have higher cancer mortality rates brings up two important issues. The first is the devastating and pervasive impact of structural racism and minority status on the health of Black individuals regardless of socioeconomic strides and success. The authors note that these manifest as a lack of access to high-quality services, financial burdens that limit treatment, or biases that prevent screening and preventative efforts, among others.

Implicit bias on a provider and staff level can also contribute to differences in the quality of cancer care being delivered and exacerbate medical mistrust. For example, Enzinger and colleagues evaluated access to opioids among people on Medicare who were dying of cancer (n = 318,549) in the 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.2 Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive any opioid, and, if given, they were more likely to receive a lower daily and a lower total dose. Black men also reportedly were more likely to undergo urine drug screening. According to this report, the disparities were not attenuated by adjustments for socioeconomic factors (e.g., rurality, community-level factors). The second important issue regarding access to opioids is that it emphasizes the importance of applying an intersectional lens to disparities work in order to make progress, which is something that is missing from the current analyses.

Intersectionality was originally used by Kimberlé Crenshaw in Black feminist theory as a critical framework to understand power and oppression that takes into account the multiple social categories one identifies with and interacts through.3, 4 In medicine, as shown in these publications, it goes beyond race and includes gender, location, and socioeconomic markers (e.g., education, insurance). For example, take cervical cancer screening rates in the United States. Chen et al. showed that, compared with US-born White women, immigrant women across race and ethnic backgrounds had lower screening rates. Access to care and socioeconomic barriers were noted in the immigrant Hispanic community, but lack of awareness/education about human papillomavirus appeared to be the primary barrier for immigrant women from White and Asian backgrounds.5 Both the 2023 ACS report and the article by Chen et al. show that, although important findings are uncovered when any one factor is evaluated in isolation, the real work is addressing what is at the root of those differences, and we cannot effectively intervene to mitigate the disparities.

Another example of the importance using intersectional lenses in cancer disparities work involved sexual and gender minority (SGM; also known as LGBTQ+) individuals. Collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data is largely missing in the databases used in this report (i.e., the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the National Center for Health Statistics). SGM people are less likely to be offered appropriate cancer screening despite having a higher risk of multiple cancers, including breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and lung. In addition, across the cancer continuum, they receive a lower quality of care, contributing to more anxiety and depression during survivorship, and they even have higher rates of cancer recurrence. Multiple studies indicate worse outcomes for SGM people of color, including in palliative care settings, in which Black and Hispanic SGM patients were two to four times more likely than their White SGM counterparts to report discrimination.6 Current recommendations and best practices include collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data,7, 8 but current political environments focused on banning gender-affirming care may put this at risk, putting the movement to address SGM disparities to the test.

Also problematic is using race as the primary characteristic around which we design efforts to effectively address cancer disparities; this is inadequate. In part, this is because race is a social construct fundamentally informed by social perceptions rather than by scientific foundation.9 Ultimately, it is a subjective descriptor of a phenotype that is a poor substitute for genotype. This point was made in an early onset lung cancer study that included enrolled volunteers (n = 555 self-reported Caucasian/non-Hispanic individuals and n = 191 self-reported Black individuals), all of whom underwent genotyping that included a 13 short tandem repeat locus previously established to characterize individual ancestry.10 Among the study participants, European ancestry was found to correlate poorly with self-described race, with significant overlap in individual ancestry across Black and White self-described volunteers. Conflating racial differences with biologic differences and inaccurately/incompletely measuring racial and ethnic differences complicates this work.

Fortunately, both national and local programs are emerging to address disparities, and many of them are described by the authors of the 2023 ACS report. Still, much more work is needed. Not only do we have to creatively challenge our sources of descriptive data, data collection, and data accuracy, as indicated above; we also need to include community voices and develop a diverse workforce that reflects all of our surrounding communities.

We cannot effectively address disparities in cancer outcomes in a vacuum. The factors at play are structural, embedded within society over generations. However, we can do our part by ensuring community engagement in our efforts, listening to what those we seek to help tell us are the issues, and helping define the priorities to achieve equity. These factors are all essential. Providing opportunities across diverse populations to explore medicine and oncology early on may help to inspire a diverse workforce. Most of all, engaging with cultural humility from a systems standpoint and holding those who work within it to ethical standards are paramount. The related critical need to address bias in the workforce requires evidence-based interventions that are focused on lasting change that must occur beyond any one mandatory training module. Finally, reflecting on our own beliefs and how they affect our behaviors and attitudes, the care we provide, and the words we write in patient charts and elsewhere, is critical. All of this matters—from the national, to the institutional, to the individual level.

Ultimately, intersectional analyses can us help address the difference between describing disparities and addressing inequities.9 Making the effort to start collecting data that accurately reflect the lived experiences of our patients with cancer requires cultural humility and meaningful community engagement. This will allow us to move from describing disparities to developing evidence-based programs for all of our patients to achieve equitable care and, as this ACS study suggests, give everyone an equal chance to survive cancer.

Shail Maingi reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Gilead Sciences/Gilead Foundation; Lilly USA, LLC; Merck; and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Don S. Dizon reports personal fees by Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Kronos Biotech, and Clovis. He also reports institutional finding by Bristol Myers Squibb. All of this is outside of the submitted work.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
873.20
自引率
0.10%
发文量
51
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians" has been published by the American Cancer Society since 1950, making it one of the oldest peer-reviewed journals in oncology. It maintains the highest impact factor among all ISI-ranked journals. The journal effectively reaches a broad and diverse audience of health professionals, offering a unique platform to disseminate information on cancer prevention, early detection, various treatment modalities, palliative care, advocacy matters, quality-of-life topics, and more. As the premier journal of the American Cancer Society, it publishes mission-driven content that significantly influences patient care.
期刊最新文献
Bilateral mastectomy may not reduce mortality risk Most young female cancer survivors are at minimal risk for obstetric problems Breast cancer statistics 2024. Breast cancer: The good, the bad, and an important call to effective risk reduction strategies. Reviewer acknowledgement 2024
×
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