Using research findings in clinical practice

Abstract

Deprivation and emergency admissions for cancersOther possible explanations for findings need to be explored Editor-The reasons for Pollock and Vickers's findings about the relation between deprivation and emergency admissions for cancers remain speculative. 1To impute the differences in care to failures of primary care seems unfair at this stage.The authors discuss a range of possible explanations, but many other could also be relevant.Day case treatment may require a certain level of facilities at home that are less commonly available in deprived areas.The presence of another adult at home may also be a prerequisite.Single people may be more likely to live in deprived areas; patients from deprived areas may be more likely to have a working partner who cannot afford to take time off work or who has a job where such absences would be unacceptable.Patients with lung cancer due to smoking (more common in areas where smoking is more prevalent) may be less likely to have an operable malignancy because of concomitant disease related to smoking.The authors mention this in their discussion, but limiting the study to inpatient finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of any of the three cancers of interest does not give any information about comorbidity.I hope further research will be carried out to help elucidate the reasons behind the apparently inequitable access and treatment decisions that Pollock and Vickers have found.Both qualitative and quantitative research methods could be used to study patients' and professionals' experiences as patients pass through the system.Perhaps allocation of blame should wait until such results are available.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.