PURPOSE: Distance from residence to hospital has been associated with clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients. However, little is known about the association of remoteness with quality of life (QoL) for colorectal cancer survivors. We examined the relationship between distance from hospital and colorectal cancer survivors' QoL, with a specific focus on gender. METHODS: Colorectal cancer survivors in Ireland who were more than 6-months postdiagnosis completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, measuring global health status (GHS) and physical, role, cognitive, social, and emotional functioning. Bootstrap linear regression was used to evaluate the association between remoteness and QoL scales, controlling for demographic and clinical variables. Separate models were generated for the full sample, for women, and for men. RESULTS: The final analytical sample was 496 colorectal cancer survivors; 186 women and 310 men. Living remote from the treating hospital was associated with lower physical functioning (coefficient -4.38 [95 % confidence interval -8.13, -0.91]) and role functioning (coeff. -7.78 [-12.64, -2.66]) among all colorectal cancer survivors. In the separate gender models, remoteness was significantly associated with lower physical (coeff. -7.00 [-13.47, -1.49]) and role functioning (coeff. -11.50 [-19.66, -2.65]) for women, but not for men. Remoteness had a significant negative relationship to GHS (coeff. -4.31 [-8.46, -0.27]) for men. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects of QoL are lower among colorectal cancer survivors who live far from their treating hospital. There are gender differences in how remoteness is related to QoL domains. The results of this study suggest that policy makers, service providers, and health care professionals should consider the specific QoL needs of remote colorectal cancer survivors, and be attuned to and prepared to address the differing needs of men and women.
PURPOSE: Distance from residence to hospital has been associated with clinical outcomes for colorectal cancerpatients. However, little is known about the association of remoteness with quality of life (QoL) for colorectal cancer survivors. We examined the relationship between distance from hospital and colorectal cancer survivors' QoL, with a specific focus on gender. METHODS:Colorectal cancer survivors in Ireland who were more than 6-months postdiagnosis completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, measuring global health status (GHS) and physical, role, cognitive, social, and emotional functioning. Bootstrap linear regression was used to evaluate the association between remoteness and QoL scales, controlling for demographic and clinical variables. Separate models were generated for the full sample, for women, and for men. RESULTS: The final analytical sample was 496 colorectal cancer survivors; 186 women and 310 men. Living remote from the treating hospital was associated with lower physical functioning (coefficient -4.38 [95 % confidence interval -8.13, -0.91]) and role functioning (coeff. -7.78 [-12.64, -2.66]) among all colorectal cancer survivors. In the separate gender models, remoteness was significantly associated with lower physical (coeff. -7.00 [-13.47, -1.49]) and role functioning (coeff. -11.50 [-19.66, -2.65]) for women, but not for men. Remoteness had a significant negative relationship to GHS (coeff. -4.31 [-8.46, -0.27]) for men. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects of QoL are lower among colorectal cancer survivors who live far from their treating hospital. There are gender differences in how remoteness is related to QoL domains. The results of this study suggest that policy makers, service providers, and health care professionals should consider the specific QoL needs of remote colorectal cancer survivors, and be attuned to and prepared to address the differing needs of men and women.
Authors: Erin L McGowan; Amy E Speed-Andrews; Ryan E Rhodes; Chris M Blanchard; S Nicole Culos-Reed; Christine M Friedenreich; Kerry S Courneya Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-05-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Thomas A Arcury; Wilbert M Gesler; John S Preisser; Jill Sherman; John Spencer; Jamie Perin Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Nicola M Gray; Susan J Hall; Susan Browne; Marie Johnston; Amanda J Lee; Una Macleod; Elizabeth D Mitchell; Leslie Samuel; Neil C Campbell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J Jason Lundy; Stephen Joel Coons; Christopher Wendel; Mark C Hornbrook; Lisa Herrinton; Marcia Grant; Robert S Krouse Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Yong Cai; Eric H Larson; Sharon A Dobie; George E Wright; David C Goodman; Barbara Matthews; L Gary Hart Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: K S Courneya; C M Friedenreich; H A Quinney; A L A Fields; L W Jones; A S Fairey Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Paul Hanly; Alan Ó Céilleachair; Mairead Skally; Eamonn O'Leary; Kanika Kapur; Patricia Fitzpatrick; Anthony Staines; Linda Sharp Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Dragomir Svetozarov Stoyanov; Nikolay Vladimirov Conev; Ivan Shterev Donev; Ivan Dimitrov Tonev; Teodorika Vitalinova Panayotova; Eleonora Georgieva Dimitrova-Gospodinova Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Shelley A Jazowski; Isabelle P Sico; Jennifer H Lindquist; Valerie A Smith; Hayden B Bosworth; Susanne Danus; Dawn Provenzale; Michael J Kelley; Leah L Zullig Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Claire O'Gorman; Jim Stack; Alan O'Ceilleachair; Suzanne Denieffe; Martina Gooney; Martina McKnight; Linda Sharp Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.430