Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cohort study investigates health behaviors mediating cancer mortality differences linked to education in Japan, highlighting disparities.
BackgroundPrevious studies have reported educational inequalities in all and site-specific cancer mortality. However, the mechanisms underlying this association remain unclear. We investigated the association between educational level and all- and site-specific cancer mortality and examined potential mediating factors.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal study using data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES), initiated in 2010 with 7-year follow-up targeting independent adults aged ≥65 years. Self-report questionnaire data were linked to mortality records from municipal registries. Educational level was exposure (<10/10-12/>12 years for competing risk models and <10/≥10 years for causal mediation analysis). All- and site-specific cancer mortality were outcomes. Competing risk models estimated sub-distribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Causal mediation analysis assessed mediating effects of smoking status, drinking status, health examination, vegetable and/or fruit intake, and walking time.ResultsAmong 43,478 participants (46.6% men, mean age 73.7 years), the 7-year mortality from all cancers was 5.1%. Low educational level was associated with higher all-cancer mortality (SHR for the lowest compared with the highest 1.27; 95%CI, 1.13-1.44). Similar associations were observed for tracheal and lung, and esophageal cancer mortality. The association between educational level and all cancer mortality was significantly mediated by smoking status (5.6%), health examination (8.0%), and walking time (7.1%), but not by drinking status and vegetable and/or fruit intake.ConclusionLower educational level was associated with a higher risk of all cancer, tracheal and lung cancer, and esophageal cancer mortality. Health behaviors partially explained these associations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kiuchi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: