↓ Skip to main content

Race, insurance type, and stage of presentation among lung cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Race, insurance type, and stage of presentation among lung cancer patients
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-710
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jimmy T Efird, Hope Landrine, Kristin Y Shiue, Wesley T O’Neal, Tarun Podder, Julian G Rosenman, Tithi Biswas

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether African-American lung cancer patients are diagnosed at a later stage than white patients, regardless of insurance type. The relationship between race and stage at diagnosis by insurance type was assessed using a Poisson regression model, with relative risk as the measure of association. The setting of the study was a large tertiary care cancer center located in the southeastern United States. Patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer between 2001 and 2010 were included in the study. A total of 717 (31%) African-American and 1,634 (69%) white lung cancer patients were treated at our facility during the study period. Adjusting for age, sex, and smoking-related histology, African-American patients were diagnosed at a statistically significant later stage (III/IV versus I/II) than whites for all insurance types, with the exception of Medicaid. Our results suggest that equivalent insurance coverage may not ensure equal presentation of stage between African-American and white lung cancer patients. Future research is needed to determine whether other factors such as treatment delays, suboptimal preventive care, inappropriate specialist referral, community segregation, and a lack of patient trust in health care providers may explain the continuing racial disparities observed in the current study.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,401,176
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,261
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,454
of 360,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#59
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 360,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.