Els of socioeconomic status and breast cancer threat factors; Univariate analysisVariable SES II vs.SES I

Els of socioeconomic status and breast cancer threat factors; Univariate analysisVariable SES II vs.SES I OR self-confidence Undecanoate Epigenetic Reader Domain interval pvalue SES III vs.SES I OR self-assurance interval pvalue SES IV vs.SES I OR confidence interval pvalueAge . … … .. … … . . … … . .Referent .Referent .Referent Marital Status . … … .Single .Referent .Referent .Referent Married Household history . ……. .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No No.. … … .Pregnancy .. … .No.Abortion . .Breast . … … .feeding (duration) Fatty diet program . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No Smoking . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No Poor socioeconomic status has regarded as the base.Substantial variables have indicated with ……..decreased by improving socioeconomic status.It has meant that the odds of superior socioeconomic PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21591972 status have decreased by escalating quantity in counting the pregnancies (CI.).Also, the odds of great socioeconomic status has decreased by rising number in counting the pregnancies .In line with table , the associations involving socioeconomic status and variety of pregnancies, number of abortions and smoking were considerable.To obtain this clearly, the results of Several Logistic Regression have stated o The odds of moderate socioeconomic status have decreased by growing 1 quantity in counting the pregnancies (CI. ).o The odds of good socioeconomic status have decreased by escalating 1 number in counting the pregnancies (CI.).o The odds of fantastic socioeconomic status have decreased by rising onenumber in counting the pregnancies (CI.).o The odds of outstanding socioeconomic status have elevated by increasing 1 quantity in counting the abortions (CI).o The odds of moderate socioeconomic status in smokers have decreased in comparison with nonsmoker persons (CI.).The odds of excellent socioeconomic status in smokers have decreased in comparison with nonsmoker people (Cl.).DiscussionBased on the outcomes of this study, the mean age of individuals was .years and .with the sufferers were younger than years.Within the study of Yavari et al the imply age of sufferers was . that would be comparable to this study .The mean age of patients was .yearsIranian Journal of Cancer PreventionRelationships amongst Household Levels of Socioeconomic Status and Distribution ..Table .Multinomial Logistic Regression test lead to partnership between family levels of socioeconomic status and breast cancer danger factors; numerous analysesVariable SES II vs.SES I OR self-confidence interval pvalue SES III vs.SES I OR self-confidence interval pvalue SES IV vs.SES I OR confidence interval pvalueAge . … … .. … … . . … … . .Referent .Referent .Referent Marital Status . … … .Single .Referent .Referent .Referent Married Family members history . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No No.. … … .Pregnancy .. … .No.Abortion . .Breast . … … .feeding (duration) Fatty eating plan . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No Smoking . … … .Yes .Referent .Referent .Referent No Poor socioeconomic status has regarded because the base.Substantial variables have indicated with ……..(SD) in Akbari et al.study and in Ebrahimi et al.study the imply age of sufferers was .years and percent of sufferers were younger than years .In line with the results of this study in Univariate Evaluation, a significant association in between family socioeconomic status and age at cancer diagnosis amongst patients has detected (p worth).It has meant that am.