ArticleJAAD international2026
Political determinants of melanoma: Global inequities in skin cancer care.
Article in JAAD international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Melanoma outcomes differ across countries, income settings, and skin tones, reflecting not only variable environmental and genetic risks but also upstream political determinants of health that shape exposure, access, and resources. Objective: To apply the 3-I framework (Interests, Ideas, and Institutions) to synthesize global melanoma inequities and identify actionable dermatologic implications. Methods: A narrative review of the literature (1990-2025) examined melanoma, inequities, health-system and political determinants, financing, therapies, and global and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) contexts, mapping sources to the 3-I framework. Results: Interests of governments, payers, and industry determine financing priorities, creating access gaps to immunotherapy, surgery, and pathology, particularly in LMICs and underinsured US populations. Ideas in clinical trials, artificial intelligence tools, and education underrepresent skin of color and LMIC contexts. Institutions, including segregation, colonial legacies, and centralized services, create structural barriers to timely evaluation and treatment. Examples from Australia, the US, India, and African contexts reveal recurring patterns. Conclusions: The 3-I framework (Interests, Ideas, and Institutions) identifies levers (equitable financing expansion, inclusive evidence generation, and institutional reform) through which dermatologists can promote earlier detection and equitable care via total body skin examinations for all skin tones and advocacy for covered, integrated skin cancer screening in primary care and high-risk clinic networks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.