Literature DB >> 23899587

Primary uterine cancer in Maryland: impact of distance on access to surgical care at high-volume hospitals.

Camille C Gunderson1, Ana I Tergas, Aimee C Fleury, Teresa P Diaz-Montes, Robert L Giuntoli.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of distance on access to high-volume surgical treatment for patients with uterine cancer in Maryland.
METHODS: The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission database was retrospectively searched to identify primary uterine cancer surgical cases from 1994 to 2010. Race, type of insurance, year of surgery, community setting, and both surgeon and hospital volume were collected. Geographical coordinates of hospital and patient's zip code were used to calculate primary independent outcomes of distance traveled and distance from nearest high-volume hospital (HVH). Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and confidence intervals.
RESULTS: From 1994 to 2010, 8529 women underwent primary surgical management of uterine cancer in Maryland. Multivariable analysis demonstrated white race, rural residence, surgery by a high-volume surgeon and surgery from 2003 to 2010 to be associated with both travel 50 miles or more to the treating hospital and residence 50 miles or more from the nearest HVH (all P < 0.05). Patients who travel 50 miles or more to the treating hospital are more likely to have surgery at a HVH (odds ratio, 6.03; 95% confidence interval, 4.67-7.79) In contrast, patients, who reside ≥50 miles from a HVH, are less likely to have their surgery at an HVH. (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.42).
CONCLUSION: In Maryland, 50 miles or more from residence to the nearest HVH is a barrier to high-volume care. However, patients who travel 50 miles or more seem to do so to receive care by a high-volume surgeon at an HVH. In Maryland, Nonwhites are more likely to live closer to an HVH and more likely to use these services.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23899587     DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31829ea002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  5 in total

1.  Enrolling Minority and Underserved Populations in Cancer Clinical Research.

Authors:  Sherrie F Wallington; Chiranjeev Dash; Vanessa B Sheppard; Tawara D Goode; Bridget A Oppong; Everett E Dodson; Rhonda N Hamilton; Lucile L Adams-Campbell
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Referral patterns between high- and low-volume centers and associations with uterine cancer treatment and survival: a population-based study of Medicare, Medicaid, and privately insured women.

Authors:  Kemi M Doll; Ke Meng; Paola A Gehrig; Wendy R Brewster; Anne-Marie Meyer
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  A cancer geography paradox? Poorer cancer outcomes with longer travelling times to healthcare facilities despite prompter diagnosis and treatment: a data-linkage study.

Authors:  Melanie Turner; Shona Fielding; Yuhan Ong; Chris Dibben; Zhiqianq Feng; David H Brewster; Corri Black; Amanda Lee; Peter Murchie
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Geographic disparities in the distribution of the U.S. gynecologic oncology workforce: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology study.

Authors:  Stephanie Ricci; Ana I Tergas; Kara Long Roche; Melissa Gerardi Fairbairn; Kimberly L Levinson; Sean C Dowdy; Robert E Bristow; Micael Lopez; Katrina Slaughter; Kathleen Moore; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Rep       Date:  2017-11-15

5.  A qualitative study on the impact of long-distance travel for gynecologic cancer care.

Authors:  Vaidehi Mujumdar; Timberly R Butler; David I Shalowitz
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Rep       Date:  2021-09-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.