Michael A Andrykowski1, Jessica L Burris. 1. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, KY 40536-0086, USA. mandry@uky.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has identified rural residence as a risk factor for poorer mental health (MH) outcomes in cancer survivors. This may be due to less use of various MH resources due to poorer access and less favorable attitudes and social norms related to MH resource utilization. The present study sought to examine use of MH resources in rural and nonrural survivors and identify factors associated with MH resource use. METHODS: Cancer survivors (n=113, 1-5 years postdiagnosis) completed a questionnaire packet and telephone interview. Accessibility and postdiagnosis use of various formal and informal MH resources were assessed along with constructs potentially linked to use of MH resources by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; personal attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control). RESULTS: Results indicated no widespread differences between rural and nonrural cancer survivors in MH resource use although some evidence suggested poorer accessibility and less use of mental health professionals and cancer support groups among rural survivors. In general, rural survivors reported less favorable personal attitudes and social norms regarding MH resource use. TPB constructs accounted for a significant portion of variance in use of most MH resources with personal attitudes generally being the strongest predictor of MH resource use. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to expand the search for factors, particularly modifiable factors, which might account for disparities in MH outcomes between rural and nonrural survivors.
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has identified rural residence as a risk factor for poorer mental health (MH) outcomes in cancer survivors. This may be due to less use of various MH resources due to poorer access and less favorable attitudes and social norms related to MH resource utilization. The present study sought to examine use of MH resources in rural and nonrural survivors and identify factors associated with MH resource use. METHODS:Cancer survivors (n=113, 1-5 years postdiagnosis) completed a questionnaire packet and telephone interview. Accessibility and postdiagnosis use of various formal and informal MH resources were assessed along with constructs potentially linked to use of MH resources by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; personal attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control). RESULTS: Results indicated no widespread differences between rural and nonrural cancer survivors in MH resource use although some evidence suggested poorer accessibility and less use of mental health professionals and cancer support groups among rural survivors. In general, rural survivors reported less favorable personal attitudes and social norms regarding MH resource use. TPB constructs accounted for a significant portion of variance in use of most MH resources with personal attitudes generally being the strongest predictor of MH resource use. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to expand the search for factors, particularly modifiable factors, which might account for disparities in MH outcomes between rural and nonrural survivors.
Authors: Bette Caan; Barbara Sternfeld; Erica Gunderson; Ashley Coates; Charles Quesenberry; Martha L Slattery Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Yan Leykin; Seema M Thekdi; Dianne M Shumay; Ricardo F Muñoz; Michelle Riba; Laura B Dunn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Molly H Gardner; Margaux J Barnes; Shilpa Bopanna; Caroline S Davis; Pat B Cotton; Bethany L Heron; Alison Henninger; Elizabeth Alva; Michael W Gleason; Kimberly F Whelan; Avi Madan-Swain Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Anna Beraldi; Ene Kukk; Alexandra Nest; Gabriele Schubert-Fritschle; Jutta Engel; Pia Heußner; Peter Herschbach Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Electra D Paskett; Katherine B Peters; Janette K Merrill; Jonathan Phillips; Raymond U Osarogiagbon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Laurie E McLouth; Kaitlyn Weyman; Shannon L Golden; Jennifer S Cheavens; Amy Peterman; Vilma Bursac; Jennifer Gabbard; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Gill Hubbard; Christine Venning; Alison Walker; Karen Scanlon; Richard G Kyle Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 3.603