| Title |
Educational differentials in cancer mortality and avoidable deaths in Lithuania, 2001–2009: a census-linked study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-015-0745-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Domantas Jasilionis, Giedre Smailyte, Ieva Vincerzevskiene, Vladimir M. Shkolnikov |
| Abstract |
We investigate relative mortality inequalities by education for detailed cancer sites and provide estimates of deaths which could have been avoided through the elimination of these inequalities. A census-linked dataset based on a follow-up of all residents registered in the 2001 census was used for the analysis. Mortality rate ratios were estimated by employing multivariate Poisson regression models for count data. An inverse educational gradient was observed for 11 cancer sites among men and for three cancer sites among women. Substantial shares of these cancer deaths would have been avoided if mortality among less educated groups had been the same as mortality among highly educated groups. Cancer control plans must consider socioeconomic inequalities and propose ways to improve prevention measures aimed at disadvantaged groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 4 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,653,708
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#1,657
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,057
of 286,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#41
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.