Skip to main content
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 1999 Dec;53(12):775–781. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.12.775

Variation in the provision of chemotherapy for colorectal cancer

A McLeod
PMCID: PMC1756822  PMID: 10656086

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of patient, area and hospital characteristics on variations in the provision of chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. SUBJECTS: Incident cases of colorectal cancer (ICD 153-154), aged under 75 years and resident in Scotland, derived from linked hospital discharge records and death records for the period January 1990 to June 1994. The final analysis was carried out on 7852 patients resident in 823 areas and first admitted to one of 59 hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Whether a patient received chemotherapy (OPCS4 procedure code X35.2) during any hospital episode in the six months after their first admission. METHODS: Multilevel logistic regression to separate effects of patients, areas and hospitals. RESULTS: During the study period, 8% (n = 626) of the study population received chemotherapy within six months of their first admission. Adjusting for comorbidities and emergency admissions, both age and deprivation were significantly associated with the treatment. The odds ratios (OR) of chemotherapy relative to patients aged 65-74 were 2.13 and 4.50 for patients aged 55-64 and under 55 respectively. Relative to patients resident in the most affluent areas, the OR of chemotherapy for patients resident in the most deprived areas was 0.73. Area level availability of the treatment was not significantly associated with a patient's odds of receiving the treatment while on site provision of chemotherapy at the hospital of first admission was (OR = 4.32). There was significant unexplained variation between hospitals of first admission but not between areas of residence; between hospital variation decreased by 22% during the study period. CONCLUSION: Differences according to age may reflect both clinical and patient decisions regarding the benefits of the treatment relative to its toxicity. Lower treatment rates in deprived areas may indicate inequitable access to services. Hospital differences may reflect consultant effects and it would be expected that these should decrease now that the efficacy of the treatment has been recognised and guidelines have been issued.

 

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (103.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ben-Shlomo Y., Chaturvedi N. Assessing equity in access to health care provision in the UK: does where you live affect your chances of getting a coronary artery bypass graft? J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995 Apr;49(2):200–204. doi: 10.1136/jech.49.2.200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gatsonis C. A., Epstein A. M., Newhouse J. P., Normand S. L., McNeil B. J. Variations in the utilization of coronary angiography for elderly patients with an acute myocardial infarction. An analysis using hierarchical logistic regression. Med Care. 1995 Jun;33(6):625–642. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199506000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Harley K., Jones C. Quality of Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR) data. Health Bull (Edinb) 1996 Sep;54(5):410–417. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ionescu M. V., Carey F., Tait I. S., Steele R. J. Socioeconomic status and stage at presentation of colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1998 Oct 31;352(9138):1439–1439. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)00052-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kendrick S., Clarke J. The Scottish Record Linkage System. Health Bull (Edinb) 1993 Mar;51(2):72–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mandelblatt J., Andrews H., Kao R., Wallace R., Kerner J. The late-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer: demographic and socioeconomic factors. Am J Public Health. 1996 Dec;86(12):1794–1797. doi: 10.2105/ajph.86.12.1794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Moertel C. G., Fleming T. R., Macdonald J. S., Haller D. G., Laurie J. A., Goodman P. J., Ungerleider J. S., Emerson W. A., Tormey D. C., Glick J. H. Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 8;322(6):352–358. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199002083220602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pollock A. M., Vickers N. Trends in colorectal cancer care in southern England, 1989-1993: using HES data to inform cancer services reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Jul;52(7):433–438. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.7.433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Redmond K. Assessing patients' needs and preferences in the management of advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 1998;77 (Suppl 2):5–7. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1998.419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rice N., Leyland A. Multilevel models: applications to health data. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996 Jul;1(3):154–164. doi: 10.1177/135581969600100307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES