Lisa P Spees1, Stephanie B Wheeler2, Mahesh Varia3, Morris Weinberger4, Christopher D Baggett5, Xi Zhou6, Victoria M Petermann7, Wendy R Brewster8. 1. The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America. Electronic address: lspees21@live.unc.edu. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America; Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America. 6. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America. 7. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America. 8. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America; Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America; Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Urban-rural health disparities are often attributed to the longer distances rural patients travel to receive care. However, a recent study suggests that distance to care may affect urban and rural cancer patients differentially. We examined whether this urban-rural paradox exists among patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: We identified individuals diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2004 to 2013 using a statewide cancer registry linked to multi-payer, insurance claims. Our primary outcome was receipt of guideline-concordant care: surgery for stages IA1-IB1; external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), concomitant chemotherapy, and brachytherapy for stages IB2-IVA. We estimated risk ratios (RR) using modified Poisson regressions, stratified by urban/rural location, to examine the association between distance to nearest facility and receipt of treatment. RESULTS: 62% of 999 cervical cancer patients received guideline-concordant care. The association between distance and receipt of care differed by type of treatment. In urban areas, cancer patients who lived ≥15 miles from the nearest surgical facility were less likely to receive primary surgical management compared to those <5 miles from the nearest surgical facility (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60-0.98). In rural areas, patients living ≥15 miles from the nearest brachytherapy facility were more likely to receive treatment compared to those <5 miles from the nearest brachytherapy facility (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.14-2.58). Distance was not associated with the receipt of chemotherapy or EBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Among cervical cancer patients, there is evidence supporting the urban-rural paradox, i.e., geographic distance to cancer care facilities is not consistently associated with treatment receipt in expected or consistent ways. Healthcare systems must consider the diverse and differential barriers encountered by urban and rural residents to improve access to high quality cancer care.
OBJECTIVE: Urban-rural health disparities are often attributed to the longer distances rural patients travel to receive care. However, a recent study suggests that distance to care may affect urban and rural cancerpatients differentially. We examined whether this urban-rural paradox exists among patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: We identified individuals diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2004 to 2013 using a statewide cancer registry linked to multi-payer, insurance claims. Our primary outcome was receipt of guideline-concordant care: surgery for stages IA1-IB1; external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), concomitant chemotherapy, and brachytherapy for stages IB2-IVA. We estimated risk ratios (RR) using modified Poisson regressions, stratified by urban/rural location, to examine the association between distance to nearest facility and receipt of treatment. RESULTS: 62% of 999 cervical cancerpatients received guideline-concordant care. The association between distance and receipt of care differed by type of treatment. In urban areas, cancerpatients who lived ≥15 miles from the nearest surgical facility were less likely to receive primary surgical management compared to those <5 miles from the nearest surgical facility (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60-0.98). In rural areas, patients living ≥15 miles from the nearest brachytherapy facility were more likely to receive treatment compared to those <5 miles from the nearest brachytherapy facility (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.14-2.58). Distance was not associated with the receipt of chemotherapy or EBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Among cervical cancerpatients, there is evidence supporting the urban-rural paradox, i.e., geographic distance to cancer care facilities is not consistently associated with treatment receipt in expected or consistent ways. Healthcare systems must consider the diverse and differential barriers encountered by urban and rural residents to improve access to high quality cancer care.
Authors: Xiao-Cheng Wu; Mary Jo Lund; Gretchen G Kimmick; Lisa C Richardson; Susan A Sabatino; Vivien W Chen; Steven T Fleming; Cyllene R Morris; Bin Huang; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Joseph Lipscomb Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephanie B Wheeler; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Ravi K Goyal; Anne-Marie Meyer; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Emily M Gillen; Seth Tyree; Carmen L Lewis; Trisha M Crutchfield; Christa E Martens; Florence Tangka; Lisa C Richardson; Michael P Pignone Journal: Health Place Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Ali H Mokdad; Laura Dwyer-Lindgren; Christina Fitzmaurice; Rebecca W Stubbs; Amelia Bertozzi-Villa; Chloe Morozoff; Raghid Charara; Christine Allen; Mohsen Naghavi; Christopher J L Murray Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Laura Dwyer-Lindgren; Amelia Bertozzi-Villa; Rebecca W Stubbs; Chloe Morozoff; Michael J Kutz; Chantal Huynh; Ryan M Barber; Katya A Shackelford; Johan P Mackenbach; Frank J van Lenthe; Abraham D Flaxman; Mohsen Naghavi; Ali H Mokdad; Christopher J L Murray Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elizabeth B Lamont; Davinder Hayreh; Kate E Pickett; James J Dignam; Marcy A List; Kerstin M Stenson; Daniel J Haraf; Bruce E Brockstein; Sarah A Sellergren; Everett E Vokes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-09-17 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Leo Y Luo; Emeline M Aviki; Anna Lee; Marisa A Kollmeier; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; C Jillian Tsai; Kaled M Alektiar Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Tabassum Z Insaf; Kristin M Sommerhalter; Treeva A Jaff; Sherry L Farr; Karrie F Downing; Ali N Zaidi; George K Lui; Alissa R Van Zutphen Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 5.099
Authors: Chelsea A Obrochta; Humberto Parada; James D Murphy; Atsushi Nara; Dennis Trinidad; Maria Rosario Happy Araneta; Caroline A Thompson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Uma D Goyal; Paras P Mehta; Susan Samreth; John Gloss; Haiyan Cui; Denise Roe; Shona Dougherty Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2021-05-13
Authors: Luca F Valle; Fang-I Chu; Palak Kundu; Stephanie M Yoon; Travis Gilchrist; Michael L Steinberg; Ann C Raldow Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.452