. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Oct 19;60(1):51–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2008.08.040

Table I.

Relation between health provider density (providers per 100,000 population) and the melanoma Mortality to Incidence Ratio (MIR) and Breslow thickness, controlling for Socioeconomic Status (SES)^**, SEER-9 program 1988–1993.

	Mortality to Incidence Ratio (MIR)			Breslow Thickness
	Provider Density (univariate)	Provider Density ^†	Controlling for SES^**	Provider Density (univariate)	Provider Density ^†	Controlling for SES^**
	Coefficient (Standard Error)^‡	Coefficient (Standard Error)^‡	Coefficient (Standard Error)^‡	Coefficient (Standard Error)^‡	Coefficient (Standard Error)^‡	Coefficient (Standard Error)^‡
Dermatologists per 100,000 population	−20 (4)^*	−50 (8)^*	−20 (8)^*	−17000 (4000)^*	−24000 (8000)^*	−15000 (8000)
Family Practitioners per 100,000 population	4 (1)^*	6 (1)^*	7 (1)^*	6000 (1000)^*	6000 (1000)^*	6000 (1000)^*
Internists per 100,000 population	−2 (0.4)^*	3 (1)^*	1 (1)	−2000 (500)^*	500 (900)	600 (900)

p-value <0.05

^†

Density of dermatologists, family practitioners and internists examined in same model.

^**

Density of providers examined in same model which controlled for the census tract median household income, proportion of the population white, and proportion with less than a high school education.

^‡

All coefficients and standard errors × 10⁻⁴

⁺

All values have been rounded to one significant figure.

Note: The dependent variables of Mortality to Incidence Ratio (census tract level) and Breslow thickness (individual level) were analyzed as continuous values using linear regression (please refer to methods section for further detail).