Romi Carriere1, Rosalind Adam2, Shona Fielding3, Raphae Barlas4, Yuhan Ong5, Peter Murchie6. 1. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: r01rac16@abdn.ac.uk. 2. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: rosalindadam@abdn.ac.uk. 3. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: s.fielding@abdn.ac.uk. 4. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: raphae.barlas.13@aberdeen.ac.uk. 5. Western General Hospital, EH42XU Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: arielyhong@doctors.org.uk. 6. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom. Electronic address: p.murchie@abdn.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing research from several countries has suggested that rural-dwellers may have poorer cancer survival than urban-dwellers. However, to date, the global literature has not been systematically reviewed to determine whether a rural cancer survival disadvantage is a global phenomenon. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing rural and urban cancer survival. At least two authors independently screened and selected studies. We included epidemiological studies comparing cancer survival between urban and rural residents (however defined) that also took socioeconomic status into account. A meta-analysis was conducted using 11 studies with binary rural:urban classifications to determine the magnitude and direction of the association between rurality and differences in cancer survival. The mechanisms for urban-rural cancer survival differences reported were narratively synthesised in all 39 studies. FINDINGS: 39 studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies conducted in developed countries. Rural-dwellers were significantly more likely to die when they developed cancer compared to urban-dwellers (HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 - 1.07). Potential mechanisms were aggregated into an ecological model under the following themes: Patient Level Characteristics; Institutions; Community, Culture and Environment; Policy and Service Organization. INTERPRETATION: Rural residents were 5% less likely to survive cancer. This effect was consistently observed across studies conducted in various geographical regions and using multiple definitions of rurality. High quality mixed-methods research is required to comprehensively evaluate the underlying factors. We have proposed an ecological model to provide a coherent framework for future explanatory research. FUNDING: None.
BACKGROUND: Existing research from several countries has suggested that rural-dwellers may have poorer cancer survival than urban-dwellers. However, to date, the global literature has not been systematically reviewed to determine whether a rural cancer survival disadvantage is a global phenomenon. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing rural and urban cancer survival. At least two authors independently screened and selected studies. We included epidemiological studies comparing cancer survival between urban and rural residents (however defined) that also took socioeconomic status into account. A meta-analysis was conducted using 11 studies with binary rural:urban classifications to determine the magnitude and direction of the association between rurality and differences in cancer survival. The mechanisms for urban-rural cancer survival differences reported were narratively synthesised in all 39 studies. FINDINGS: 39 studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies conducted in developed countries. Rural-dwellers were significantly more likely to die when they developed cancer compared to urban-dwellers (HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 - 1.07). Potential mechanisms were aggregated into an ecological model under the following themes: Patient Level Characteristics; Institutions; Community, Culture and Environment; Policy and Service Organization. INTERPRETATION: Rural residents were 5% less likely to survive cancer. This effect was consistently observed across studies conducted in various geographical regions and using multiple definitions of rurality. High quality mixed-methods research is required to comprehensively evaluate the underlying factors. We have proposed an ecological model to provide a coherent framework for future explanatory research. FUNDING: None.
Authors: Marie-Pier Bergeron-Boucher; Jim Oeppen; Niels Vilstrup Holm; Hanne Melgaard Nielsen; Rune Lindahl-Jacobsen; Maarten Jan Wensink Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sheila M Manemann; Jennifer St Sauver; Carrie Henning-Smith; Lila J Finney Rutten; Alanna M Chamberlain; Matteo Fabbri; Susan A Weston; Ruoxiang Jiang; Véronique L Roger Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Gemma A Bilkey; Richard W Trevithick; Emily P Coles; Jennifer Girschik; Kristen J Nowak Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Mesnad Alyabsi; Mary Charlton; Jane Meza; K M Monirul Islam; Amr Soliman; Shinobu Watanabe-Galloway Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2021 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.302