OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of travel distance and other sociodemographic factors on access to a diagnosing provider for patients with melanoma. DESIGN: Analysis was performed of all incident cases of melanoma in 2000 from 42 North Carolina counties. SETTING: Academic research. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and providers from 42 North Carolina counties were geocoded to street address. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations between Breslow thickness and clinical and sociodemographic factors (age, sex, poverty rate, rurality, provider supply, and distance to diagnosing provider) were examined. RESULTS: Of 643 eligible cases, 4.4% were excluded because of missing data. The median Breslow thickness was 0.6 mm (range, 0.1-20.0 mm). The median distance to diagnosing provider was 8 miles (range, 0-386 miles). For each 1-mile increase in distance, Breslow thickness increased by 0.6% (P =.003). For each 1% increase in poverty rate, Breslow thickness increased by 1% (P =.04). Breslow thickness was 19% greater for patients aged 51 to 80 years than for those aged 0 to 50 years (P =.02) and was 109% greater for patients older than 80 years than for those aged 0 to 50 years (P < .001). Sex, rurality, and supply of dermatologists were not associated with Breslow thickness. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with melanoma, distance to the diagnosing provider is a meaningful measure of access that captures different information than community-level measures of rurality, provider supply, and socioeconomic status. Future work should be targeted at identifying factors that may affect distance to diagnosing provider and serve as barriers to melanoma care.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of travel distance and other sociodemographic factors on access to a diagnosing provider for patients with melanoma. DESIGN: Analysis was performed of all incident cases of melanoma in 2000 from 42 North Carolina counties. SETTING: Academic research. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and providers from 42 North Carolina counties were geocoded to street address. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations between Breslow thickness and clinical and sociodemographic factors (age, sex, poverty rate, rurality, provider supply, and distance to diagnosing provider) were examined. RESULTS: Of 643 eligible cases, 4.4% were excluded because of missing data. The median Breslow thickness was 0.6 mm (range, 0.1-20.0 mm). The median distance to diagnosing provider was 8 miles (range, 0-386 miles). For each 1-mile increase in distance, Breslow thickness increased by 0.6% (P =.003). For each 1% increase in poverty rate, Breslow thickness increased by 1% (P =.04). Breslow thickness was 19% greater for patients aged 51 to 80 years than for those aged 0 to 50 years (P =.02) and was 109% greater for patients older than 80 years than for those aged 0 to 50 years (P < .001). Sex, rurality, and supply of dermatologists were not associated with Breslow thickness. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with melanoma, distance to the diagnosing provider is a meaningful measure of access that captures different information than community-level measures of rurality, provider supply, and socioeconomic status. Future work should be targeted at identifying factors that may affect distance to diagnosing provider and serve as barriers to melanoma care.
Authors: R G Roetzheim; N Pal; D J van Durme; D Wathington; J M Ferrante; E C Gonzalez; J P Krischer Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: C M Balch; S J Soong; J E Gershenwald; J F Thompson; D S Reintgen; N Cascinelli; M Urist; K M McMasters; M I Ross; J M Kirkwood; M B Atkins; J A Thompson; D G Coit; D Byrd; R Desmond; Y Zhang; P Y Liu; G H Lyman; A Morabito Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Celia Chao; Robert C G Martin; Merrick I Ross; Douglas S Reintgen; Michael J Edwards; R Dirk Noyes; Lee J Hagendoorn; Arnold J Stromberg; Kelly M McMasters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Raghav Tripathi; Konrad D Knusel; Harib H Ezaldein; Jeffrey F Scott; Jeremy S Bordeaux Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Whitney E Zahnd; Aimee S James; Wiley D Jenkins; Sonya R Izadi; Amanda J Fogleman; David E Steward; Graham A Colditz; Laurent Brard Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Douglas R Farquhar; Maheer M Masood; Nicholas R Lenze; Philip McDaniel; Angela Mazul; Siddharth Sheth; Adam M Zanation; Trevor G Hackman; Mark Weissler; Jose P Zevallos; Andrew F Olshan Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Tracy Onega; Andrea Cook; Beth Kirlin; Xun Shi; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Leah Tuzzio; Diana S M Buist Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ashley Meilleur; S V Subramanian; Jesse J Plascak; James L Fisher; Electra D Paskett; Elizabeth B Lamont Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nader N Massarweh; Yi-Ju Chiang; Yan Xing; George J Chang; Alex B Haynes; Y Nancy You; Barry W Feig; Janice N Cormier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544