↓ Skip to main content

Cancer incidence in indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA: a comparative population-based study

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Oncology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
twitter
94 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cancer incidence in indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA: a comparative population-based study
Published in
Lancet Oncology, October 2015
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00232-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moore, Suzanne P, Antoni, Sébastien, Colquhoun, Amy, Healy, Bonnie, Ellison-Loschmann, Lis, Potter, John D, Garvey, Gail, Bray, Freddie, Suzanne P Moore, Sébastien Antoni, Amy Colquhoun, Bonnie Healy, Lis Ellison-Loschmann, John D Potter, Gail Garvey, Freddie Bray

Abstract

Indigenous people have disproportionally worse health and lower life expectancy than their non-indigenous counterparts in high-income countries. Cancer data for indigenous people are scarce and incidence has not previously been collectively reported in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA. We aimed to investigate and compare, for the first time, the cancer burden in indigenous populations in these countries. We derived incidence data from population-based cancer registries in three states of Australia (Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory), New Zealand, the province of Alberta in Canada, and the Contract Health Service Delivery Areas of the USA. Summary rates for First Nations and Inuit in Alberta, Canada, were provided directly by Alberta Health Services. We compared age-standardised rates by registry, sex, cancer site, and ethnicity for all incident cancer cases, excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, diagnosed between 2002 and 2006. Standardised rate ratios (SRRs) and 95% CIs were computed to compare the indigenous and non-indigenous populations of each jurisdiction, except for the Alaska Native population, which was compared with the white population from the USA. We included 24 815 cases of cancer in indigenous people and 5 685 264 in non-indigenous people from all jurisdictions, not including Alberta, Canada. The overall cancer burden in indigenous populations was substantially lower in the USA except in Alaska, similar or slightly lower in Australia and Canada, and higher in New Zealand compared with their non-indigenous counterparts. Among the most commonly occurring cancers in indigenous men were lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer. In most jurisdictions, breast cancer was the most common cancer in women followed by lung and colorectal cancer. The incidence of lung cancer was higher in indigenous men in all Australian regions, in Alberta, and in US Alaska Natives than in their non-indigenous counterparts. For breast cancer, rates in women were lower in all indigenous populations except in New Zealand (SRR 1·23, CI 95% 1·16-1·32) and Alaska (1·14, 1·01-1·30). Incidence of cervical cancer was higher in indigenous women than in non-indigenous women in most jurisdictions, although the difference was not always statistically significant. There are clear differences in the scale and profile of cancer in indigenous and non-indigenous populations in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA. Our findings highlight the need for much-improved, targeted programmes of screening, vaccination, and smoking cessation, among other prevention strategies. Governments and researchers need to work in partnership with indigenous communities to improve cancer surveillance in all jurisdictions and facilitate access to cancer data. International Agency for Research on Cancer-Australia Fellowship.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
New Zealand 1 4%
Unknown 22 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Researcher 5 20%
Other 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 20%
Psychology 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 5 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 203. 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 14 March 2016.
All research outputs
#38,570
of 8,767,895 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Oncology
#54
of 3,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,719
of 245,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Oncology
#3
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,767,895 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 245,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.