ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
The importance of social vulnerability and exclusion in cancer prognosis and survival: a scoping review.
Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer prognosis and survival are determined not only by biological and clinical factors, but also by patients' social environments. Social vulnerability, including socioeconomic deprivation, limited education, weak social networks, and social exclusion, can critically influence diagnosis, treatment adherence, and outcomes. This scoping review aims to synthesize the current evidence on the impact of social vulnerability and exclusion on cancer outcomes, comprising prognosis, survival, quality of life, and related psychosocial factors.
methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between 2014 and 2025. Eligible studies included those evaluating associations between social determinants and oncological outcomes among adult cancer patients.
resultsA total of 32 studies were included, encompassing 92,291 patients. The majority were observational, including cross-sectional (n = 16), prospective cohort studies (n = 13) and retrospective studies (n = 3). The most frequent analyzed variables included marital and socioeconomic status, education and social support. Patients with stable social networks and higher socioeconomic levels showed better treatment adherence, psychological well-being, and survival; while social isolation, low income, and residence in deprived areas were associated with later diagnosis and worse prognosis. Several studies used validated indices to assess social vulnerability, such as the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and the Social Vulnerability Screening Index (SVSI).
conclusionsSocial vulnerability and exclusion are important, yet often under-recognized or undervalued determinants of cancer outcomes. The integration of social assessment into the care of cancer patients would facilitate the implementation of individualized interventions tailored to each patient's social context and needs. Such an approach could enhance equity in access to care, improve treatment adherence, and enable the early identification and mitigation of factors associated with social exclusion or vulnerability, ultimately contributing to improved survival outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371308What 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.