Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:44:11.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Outcome-Based Equity in the Treatment of Colon Cancer Patients in Finland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Matti Hakama
Affiliation:
Finnish Cancer Registry and University of Tampere
Sakari Karjalainen
Affiliation:
Finnish Cancer Registry and University of Tampere
Timo Hakulinen
Affiliation:
Finnish Cancer Registry and University of Tampere

Extract

The differences in survival rates of colon cancer patients between hospital districts were used as an indicator of equity in cancer treatment in Finland. The merits of two different assessment methods were evaluated. The large variation was mainly due to confounding by age and the extent of the disease and to random variation.

Type
General Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cutler, S. J. & Ederer, F.Maximum utilization of the life table method in analyzing survival. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1958, 8, 699712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ederer, F., Axtell, L. M. & Cutler, S. J.The relative survival rate: A statistical methodology. National Cancer Institute Monograph No. 6. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1961, 101–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Fleiss, J. L.Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley, 1981.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, T.Cancer survival corrected for heterogeneity in patient withdrawal. Biometrics, 1982, 28, 933–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, T., Pukkala, E., Hakama, M. et al. , Survival of cancer patients in Finland in 1953–1974. Annals of Clinical Research, 1981, 13 (Suppl. 31).Google Scholar
Hakulinen, T. & Tenkanen, L.Regression analysis of the relative survival rates. Applied Statistics, 1987, 36, 309–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luft, H. S., Bunker, J. P. & Enthoven, A. C.Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 301, 1364-69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miettinen, O.Theoretical epidemiology. Principles of occurrence research in medicine. New York: Wiley, 1985.Google Scholar
Montoya-Aquilar, C. & Marin-Lira, M. A.International equity in coverage of primary health care: Examples from developing countries. WHO Statistics Quarterly, 1986, 39, 336–44.Google Scholar
Musgrove, P.Measurement of equity in health. WHO Statistics Quarterly, 1986, 39, 32533.Google ScholarPubMed
Payne, C. D. (ed.). The GLIM System Release 3.77 Generalized Linear Interactive Modelling. Manual. Oxford: Numerical Algorithms Group, 1986.Google Scholar
Pukkala, E., Gustavsson, N. & Teppo, L.Atlas of cancer incidence in Finland 1953–82. Cancer Society of Finland publication No. 37 Helsinki: Finnish Cancer Registry, 1987.Google Scholar
Teppo, L., Hakama, M., Hakulinen, T. et al. , Cancer in Finland 1953–1970: Incidence, mortality, prevalence. Acta Pat hologica et Micro biologica Scandinavica, Section A, 1975 (Suppl. 224).Google Scholar
Wald, N. J. & Doll, R. (eds.) Interpretation of negative epidemiological evidence for carcinogenicity. IARC Scientific Publications No. 65. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1985.Google Scholar