PURPOSE: Cancer registry survival analyses have shown that adolescent and young adult patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) have reduced survival compared to those with higher SES. The objective of this study was to determine whether neighborhood- (nSES) and/or individual-level SES (iSES) also predicted current quality of life in adolescent and young adult survivors. METHODS: The Socioeconomics and Quality of Life study surveyed adolescent and young adult survivors of leukemia and lymphoma at least one year post-diagnosis using population-based ascertainment. Factor analysis was used to create a multidimensional age-relevant iSES score and compared with a preexisting census-block-group derived nSES score. Four quality of life domains were assessed: physical health, psychological and emotional well-being, social relationships, and life skills. Nested multivariable linear regression models were run to test the associations between both SES measures and quality of life and to compare the explanatory power of nSES and iSES. RESULTS: Data from 110 individuals aged 16-40 were included in the final analysis. After adjustment for sociodemographic confounders, low nSES was associated only with poorer physical health, whereas low iSES was related to poorer quality of life in all four domains with iSES accounting for an additional 14, 12, 25, and 10 % of the variance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of SES at the individual as compared to the neighborhood level may be stronger indicators of outcomes in adolescents and young adults, which has important implications for SES measurement in the context of cancer surveillance.
PURPOSE:Cancer registry survival analyses have shown that adolescent and young adult patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) have reduced survival compared to those with higher SES. The objective of this study was to determine whether neighborhood- (nSES) and/or individual-level SES (iSES) also predicted current quality of life in adolescent and young adult survivors. METHODS: The Socioeconomics and Quality of Life study surveyed adolescent and young adult survivors of leukemia and lymphoma at least one year post-diagnosis using population-based ascertainment. Factor analysis was used to create a multidimensional age-relevant iSES score and compared with a preexisting census-block-group derived nSES score. Four quality of life domains were assessed: physical health, psychological and emotional well-being, social relationships, and life skills. Nested multivariable linear regression models were run to test the associations between both SES measures and quality of life and to compare the explanatory power of nSES and iSES. RESULTS: Data from 110 individuals aged 16-40 were included in the final analysis. After adjustment for sociodemographic confounders, low nSES was associated only with poorer physical health, whereas low iSES was related to poorer quality of life in all four domains with iSES accounting for an additional 14, 12, 25, and 10 % of the variance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of SES at the individual as compared to the neighborhood level may be stronger indicators of outcomes in adolescents and young adults, which has important implications for SES measurement in the context of cancer surveillance.
Authors: Tara Clinton-McHarg; Mariko Carey; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Anthony Shakeshaft; Kathy Rainbird Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Gisela Michel; Claudia E Kuehni; Cornelia E Rebholz; Karin Zimmermann; Christine Eiser; Corina S Rueegg; Nicolas X von der Weid Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Tenbroeck Smith; Kevin D Stein; C Christina Mehta; Chiewkwei Kaw; James L Kepner; Trent Buskirk; Jeremy Stafford; Frank Baker Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kay K Sundberg; Eva Doukkali; Claudia Lampic; Lars E Eriksson; Johan Arvidson; Lena Wettergren Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Christina A Clarke; Tim Miller; Ellen T Chang; Daixin Yin; Myles Cockburn; Scarlett L Gomez Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2010-02-12 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: A Zambon; A Morgan; C Vereecken; S Colombini; W Boyce; J Mazur; P Lemma; F Cavallo Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Debra L Friedman; John Whitton; Wendy Leisenring; Ann C Mertens; Sue Hammond; Marilyn Stovall; Sarah S Donaldson; Anna T Meadows; Leslie L Robison; Joseph P Neglia Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Kathleen J Yost; Elizabeth A Hahn; Alan M Zaslavsky; John Z Ayanian; Dee W West Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2008-08-25 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: J Vetsch; C E Wakefield; E G Robertson; T N Trahair; M K Mateos; M Grootenhuis; G M Marshall; R J Cohn; J E Fardell Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Anne C Kirchhoff; Holly L Spraker-Perlman; Molly McFadden; Echo L Warner; Kevin C Oeffinger; Jennifer Wright; Anita Y Kinney Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Ashley Wilder Smith; Theresa Keegan; Ann Hamilton; Charles Lynch; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Stephen M Schwartz; Ikuko Kato; Rosemary Cress; Linda Harlan Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2018-10-07 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Echo L Warner; Erin E Kent; Kelly M Trevino; Helen M Parsons; Bradley J Zebrack; Anne C Kirchhoff Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Janet N Chu; Alison J Canchola; Theresa H M Keegan; Alyssa Nickell; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Ann S Hamilton; Rosa L Yu; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Salma Shariff-Marco Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 4.090