Deprivation and emergency admissions for cancersBMJ 1999; 318 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7179.326 (Published 30 January 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;318:326
Other possible explanations for findings need to be explored
- Jennifer Mindell, Honorary clinical lecturer. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College School of Medicine at St Mary's, London W2 1PG
- Cancer Research Campaign Department of Medical Oncology, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1BD
- Scottish Cancer Intelligence Unit, Information and Statistics Division, Edinburgh EH5 3SQ
- Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY
EDITOR—The reasons for Pollock and Vickers's findings about the relation between deprivation and emergency admissions for cancers remain speculative.1 To impute the differences in care to failures of primary care seems unfair at this stage. The authors discuss a range of possible explanations, but many other could also be relevant.
Day case treatment may require a certain level of facilities at home that are less commonly available in deprived areas. The presence of another adult at home may also be a prerequisite. Single people may be more likely to live in deprived areas; patients from deprived areas may be more likely to have a working partner who cannot afford to take time off work or who has a job where such absences would be unacceptable.
Patients with lung cancer due to …