IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/oslohe/2002_003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A cancer survival model that takes sociodemographic variations in 'normal' mortality into account: comparison with other models

Author

Listed:
  • Kravdal, Øystein

    () (Department of Economics)

Abstract

Study objectives - Sociodemographic differentials in cancer survival have occasionally been studied by using a relative-survival approach, where all-cause mortality among persons with a cancer diagnosis is compared with that among similar persons without such a diagnosis (’normal’ mortality). One should ideally take into account that this ’normal’ mortality not only depends on age, sex and period, but also various other sociodemographic variables. However, this has very rarely been done. A method that allows such variations to be considered is presented here, as an alternative to an existing technique, and is compared with a relative-survival model where these variations are disregarded and two other methods that have often been used. Design, setting and participants – The focus is on how education and marital status affect the survival from twelve common cancer types among men and women aged 40-80. Four different types of hazard models are estimated, and differences between effects are compared. The data are from registers and censuses and cover the entire Norwegian population for the years 1960- 1991. There are more than 100 000 deaths to cancer patients in this material. Main results and conclusions - A model for registered cancer mortality among cancer patients gives results that for most, but not all, sites are very similar to those from a relative-survival approach where educational or marital variations in ’normal’ mortality are taken into account. A relative-survival approach without consideration of these sociodemographic variations in ’normal’ mortality gives more different results, the most extreme example being the doubling of the marital differentials in survival from prostate cancer. When neither sufficient data on cause of death nor on variations in ’normal’ mortality are available, one may well choose the simplest method, which is to model all-cause mortality among cancer patients. There is little reason to bother with the estimation of a relative-survival model that does not allow sociodemographic variations in ’normal’ mortality beyond those related to age, sex and period. Fortunately, both these less data demanding models perform well for the most aggressive cancers.

Suggested Citation

  • Kravdal, Øystein, 2009. "A cancer survival model that takes sociodemographic variations in 'normal' mortality into account: comparison with other models," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2002:3, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:oslohe:2002_003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hero.uio.no/publicat/2002/HERO2002_3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McDaniels, Timothy L, 1992. "Reference Points, Loss Aversion, and Contingent Values for Auto Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 187-200, May.
    2. Anna Alberini & Maureen Cropper & Alan Krupnick & Nathalie Simon, 2006. "Willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: Does latency matter?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 231-245, May.
    3. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Kristrom, Bengt & Gerdtham, Ulf-G., 1993. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- further results," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, April.
    4. Viscusi, W Kip, 1993. "The Value of Risks to Life and Health," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1912-1946, December.
    5. V. Kerry Smith & Donald H. Taylor & Frank A. Sloan, 2001. "Longevity Expectations and Death: Can People Predict Their Own Demise?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 1126-1134.
    6. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    7. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    8. Corso, Phaedra S & Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 2001. "Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 165-184, September.
    9. Laxminarayan, Ramanan & Brown, Gardner M., 2001. "Economics of Antibiotic Resistance: A Theory of Optimal Use," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, pages 183-206.
    10. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 173-210.
    11. Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 1999. "Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 33-62, April.
    12. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-959, July.
    13. Eeckhoudt, Louis R & Hammitt, James K, 2001. "Background Risks and the Value of a Statistical Life," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 261-279, November.
    14. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1997. "Choice Task Complexity and Decision Strategy Selection," Staff Paper Series 24101, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    15. Jones-Lee, M W, 1992. "Paternalistic Altruism and the Value of Statistical Life," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 80-90, January.
    16. John Quiggin, 1998. "Individual and Household Willingness to Pay for Public Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 58-63.
    17. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    18. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 1999. "Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 681-708, December.
    19. Krupnick, Alan J & Cropper, Maureen L, 1992. "The Effect of Information on Health Risk Valuations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 29-48, February.
    20. James K Hammitt & Jin-Tan Liu & Wen-Ching KLin, 2000. "Sensitivity of willingness to pay to the magnitude of risk reduction: a Taiwan­United States comparison," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 305-320.
    21. Heckman, James J, 1990. "Varieties of Selection Bias," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 313-318, May.
    22. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Lofgren, Karl-Gustaf, 1997. "On the Value of Changes in Life Expectancy: Blips versus Parametric Changes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 221-239, December.
    23. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    24. Johansson, Per-Olov, 1994. "Altruism and the value of statistical life: Empirical implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 111-118, March.
    25. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    26. Louis Eeckhoudt & Philippe Godfroid, 2000. "Risk Aversion and the Value of Information," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 382-388, December.
    27. Gerking, Shelby & de Haan, Menno & Schulze, William, 1988. "The Marginal Value of Job Safety: A Contingent Valuation Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 185-199, June.
    28. Johansson, Per-Olov, 2001. "Is there a meaningful definition of the value of a statistical life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 131-139, January.
    29. Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 1995. "Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 500-515.
    30. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", pages 129-137.
    31. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 173-210.
    32. Jones-Lee, M W, 1991. "Altruism and the Value of Other People's Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 213-219, April.
    33. Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 1-19.
    34. Pratt, John W & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1996. "Willingness to Pay and the Distribution of Risk and Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 747-763, August.
    35. Krupnick, Alan & Alberini, Anna & Cropper, Maureen & Simon, Nathalie & O'Brien, Bernie & Goeree, Ron & Heintzelman, Martin, 2002. "Age, Health and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 161-186, March.
    36. Subramanian, Uma & Cropper, Maureen, 2000. "Public Choices between Life Saving Programs: The Tradeoff between Qualitative Factors and Lives Saved," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 117-149, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cancer survival models; education; marriage;

    JEL classification:

    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hhs:oslohe:2002_003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anbjørg Kolaas) or (Frederik Lundtofte). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/heuiono.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.