IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v81y2013icp42-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The poorer cancer survival among the unmarried in Norway: Is much explained by comorbidities?

Author

Listed:
  • Kravdal, Øystein

Abstract

Studies from Norway and other countries have shown that the unmarried have poorer cancer survival than the married, given age, tumor site and stage at diagnosis. The objective of this investigation was to assess the importance of comorbidities for this difference, using disease indicators derived from the Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD) and information on cancer and sociodemographic characteristics from various other registers, all of which cover the entire Norwegian population. Discrete-time hazard models for cancer mortality up to 2007 were estimated for all 22,925 men and 21,694 women diagnosed with 13 common types of cancer in 2005–7. There were 4898 cancer deaths among men and 4187 among women. Controlling for sociodemographic factors and tumor characteristics, the odds of dying from cancer among never-married men relative to the married was 1.56 (CI 1.41–1.74). The corresponding estimates for widowed and divorced were 1.16 (CI 1.05–1.28) and 1.27 (CI 1.15–1.40). For women, the odds ratios for these three groups were 1.47 (CI 1.29–1.67), 1.10 (CI 1.01–1.20) and 1.14 (CI 1.02–1.27). Several of the 24 indicators of diseases in the year before diagnosis were associated with cancer survival, but their inclusion reduced the excess mortality of the unmarried by only 1–5 percentage points, or about 10% as an overall relative figure. Similar results were found when the four most common cancers were analyzed separately, though there were some differences between them in the role played by the comorbidities. It is possible that important comorbidities are inadequately captured by the included indicators, and perhaps especially for the unmarried. Such concerns aside, the results suggest that the marital status differences in cancer survival to little extent are due to comorbidities (and the few disease risk factors that are also captured), but rather to various other “host factors” or to treatment or care.

Suggested Citation

  • Kravdal, Øystein, 2013. "The poorer cancer survival among the unmarried in Norway: Is much explained by comorbidities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 42-52.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:81:y:2013:i:c:p:42-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613000336
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. ØYstein Kravdal & Emily Grundy & Torkild H. Lyngstad & Kenneth Aa. Wiik, 2012. "Family Life History and Late Mid-Life Mortality in Norway," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 237-257, June.
    2. Molloy, Gerard John & Stamatakis, Emmanuel & Randall, Gemma & Hamer, Mark, 2009. "Marital status, gender and cardiovascular mortality: Behavioural, psychological distress and metabolic explanations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 223-228, July.
    3. Kravdal, Øystein, 2001. "The impact of marital status on cancer survival," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 357-368, February.
    4. Linda J. Waite & Evelyn L. Lehrer, 2003. "The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(2), pages 255-275, June.
    5. Michael Rendall & Margaret Weden & Melissa Favreault & Hilary Waldron, 2011. "The Protective Effect of Marriage for Survival: A Review and Update," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(2), pages 481-506, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Klein, Jens & von dem Knesebeck, Olaf, 2015. "Socioeconomic inequalities in prostate cancer survival: A review of the evidence and explanatory factors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 9-18.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Elena Martínez & Jonathan T Unkart & Li Tao & Candyce H Kroenke & Richard Schwab & Ian Komenaka & Scarlett Lin Gomez, 2017. "Prognostic significance of marital status in breast cancer survival: A population-based study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Berntsen, Kjersti Norgård & Kravdal, Øystein, 2012. "The relationship between mortality and time since divorce, widowhood or remarriage in Norway," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2267-2274.
    3. Riina Peltonen & Jessica Y. Ho & Irma T. Elo & Pekka Martikainen, 2017. "Contribution of smoking-attributable mortality to life-expectancy differences by marital status among Finnish men and women, 1971-2010," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(8), pages 255-280.
    4. Kravdal, Øystein, 2009. "The Importance of Municipality Characteristics for Cancer Survival in Norway: A Multilevel Analysis," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2004:8, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    5. Kenneth Couch & Christopher Tamborini & Gayle Reznik, 2015. "The Long-Term Health Implications of Marital Disruption: Divorce, Work Limits, and Social Security Disability Benefits Among Men," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 52(5), pages 1487-1512, October.
    6. Shor, Eran & Roelfs, David J. & Bugyi, Paul & Schwartz, Joseph E., 2012. "Meta-analysis of marital dissolution and mortality: Reevaluating the intersection of gender and age," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 46-59.
    7. Kilpi, Fanny & Konttinen, Hanna & Silventoinen, Karri & Martikainen, Pekka, 2015. "Living arrangements as determinants of myocardial infarction incidence and survival: A prospective register study of over 300,000 Finnish men and women," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 93-100.
    8. Davillas, Apostolos & Pudney, Stephen, 2020. "Biomarkers, disability and health care demand," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    9. Pilar Zueras & Roberta Rutigliano & Sergi Trias-Llimós, 0. "Marital status, living arrangements, and mortality in middle and older age in Europe," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 0, pages 1-10.
    10. Makiko Hori & Yoshinori Kamo, 2018. "Gender Differences in Happiness: the Effects of Marriage, Social Roles, and Social Support in East Asia," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(4), pages 839-857, December.
    11. Susan Averett & Laura Argys & Julia Sorkin, 2013. "In sickness and in health: an examination of relationship status and health using data from the Canadian National Public Health Survey," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 599-633, December.
    12. Yan-Liang Yu & Zhenmei Zhang, 2017. "Interracial Marriage and Self-Reported Health of Whites and Blacks in the United States," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(6), pages 851-870, December.
    13. Rong Fu & Haruko Noguchi, 2018. "Does the positive relationship between health and marriage reflect protection or selection? Evidence from middle-aged and elderly Japanese," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1003-1016, December.
    14. Keera Allendorf & Arland Thornton & Dirgha J. Ghimire & Linda Young-DeMarco & Colter Mitchell, 2021. "A Good Age to Marry? An Intergenerational Model of the Influence of Timing Attitudes on Entrance into Marriage," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 37(1), pages 179-209, March.
    15. Wilson, Sven E., 2012. "Marriage, gender and obesity in later life," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 431-453.
    16. Gregor Gonza & Anže Burger, 2017. "Subjective Well-Being During the 2008 Economic Crisis: Identification of Mediating and Moderating Factors," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1763-1797, December.
    17. Bruno Arpino & Jordi Gumà & Albert JuliÃ, 2021. "Deviations From Standard Family Histories and Subjective Wellbeing at Older Ages," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2021_16, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    18. Øystein Kravdal & Emily Grundy & Katherine Lisa Keenan, 2018. "The increasing mortality advantage of the married: The role played by education," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 38(20), pages 471-512.
    19. Ayuso, Mercedes & Bravo, Jorge Miguel & Holzmann, Robert, 2016. "On the Heterogeneity in Longevity among Socioeconomic Groups: Scope, Trends, and Implications for Earnings-Related Pension Schemes," IZA Discussion Papers 10060, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Ernesto R. Ferreira & João D. Monteiro, 2019. "In an Era of Social, Civic and Political Disengagement, do Health Care and Social Welfare Protection Still Matter to Population Health? Evidence from OECD Mortality Data," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 41(4), pages 415-432, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:81:y:2013:i:c:p:42-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.