Peter Murchie1, Wei Lynn Khor2, Rosalind Adam2, Magdalena Esteva3, Emmanouil Smyrnakis4, Davorina Petek5, Hans Thulesius6, Peter Vedsted7, David McLernon2, Michael Harris8. 1. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK. Electronic address: p.murchie@abdn.ac.uk. 2. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK. 3. Cap Formació Continuada, Majorca Primary Care Department, Unit of Research, Balearic Islands Health Research Institute (IdISBa), Preventive Activities and Health Promotion Network (redIAPP), Escola Graduada 3, 07002 Palma Mallorca, Spain. 4. Laboratory of Primary Health Care, General Practice and Health Services Research - Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. 5. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Poljanski Nasip 58, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. 6. Linnaeus University, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden. 7. Research Unit for General Practice in Aarhus, Bartholins Allé 2, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. 8. Department for Health, University of Bath, England, BA2 7AY, UK; Berner Institut für Hausarztmedizin (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rural-dwellers have poorer cancer outcomes than urban counterparts, for reasons which are unclear. At healthcare institution level, poorer access to investigations and different clinical decision-making by rural primary healthcare practitioners (PCPs) could be important. AIM: To compare access to investigations, attitudes to cancer diagnosis and clinical decision-making between rural and urban PCPs. SETTING: A vignette-based cross-sectional survey of rural and urban PCPs in 20 European countries. METHODS: Data on PCPs' decision-making and attitudes to cancer diagnosis were based on clinical scenarios. Comparisons were made using tests of proportion, univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 1779 PCPs completing the survey 541 30.4 %) practiced rurally. Rural PCPs had significantly less direct access to all investigative modalities: ultrasound; endoscopy; x-ray and advanced screening (all p < 0.001). Rural PCPs were as likely as urban PCPs to take diagnostic action (investigation and/or referral) at the index consultation in all four clinical vignettes ((OR, 95 % CI) for lung: 0.90, 0.72-1.12; ovarian: 0.95, 0.75-1.19; breast: 0.87, 0.69-1.09; colorectal: 0.98, 0.75-1.30). Rural PCPs were less likely to refer to a specialist at the index consultation for ovarian cancer (OR 0.71 95 % CI 0.51-0.99). Rural PCPs were significantly more likely to report that their patients faced barriers to accessing specialist care, but practitioners did not report greater difficulties making specialist referral than their urban counterparts CONCLUSIONS: European rural PCPs report poorer access to investigations but are at least as likely as urban PCPs to investigate or refer patients that might have cancer at the index consultation.
BACKGROUND: Rural-dwellers have poorer cancer outcomes than urban counterparts, for reasons which are unclear. At healthcare institution level, poorer access to investigations and different clinical decision-making by rural primary healthcare practitioners (PCPs) could be important. AIM: To compare access to investigations, attitudes to cancer diagnosis and clinical decision-making between rural and urban PCPs. SETTING: A vignette-based cross-sectional survey of rural and urban PCPs in 20 European countries. METHODS: Data on PCPs' decision-making and attitudes to cancer diagnosis were based on clinical scenarios. Comparisons were made using tests of proportion, univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 1779 PCPs completing the survey 541 30.4 %) practiced rurally. Rural PCPs had significantly less direct access to all investigative modalities: ultrasound; endoscopy; x-ray and advanced screening (all p < 0.001). Rural PCPs were as likely as urban PCPs to take diagnostic action (investigation and/or referral) at the index consultation in all four clinical vignettes ((OR, 95 % CI) for lung: 0.90, 0.72-1.12; ovarian: 0.95, 0.75-1.19; breast: 0.87, 0.69-1.09; colorectal: 0.98, 0.75-1.30). Rural PCPs were less likely to refer to a specialist at the index consultation for ovarian cancer (OR 0.71 95 % CI 0.51-0.99). Rural PCPs were significantly more likely to report that their patients faced barriers to accessing specialist care, but practitioners did not report greater difficulties making specialist referral than their urban counterparts CONCLUSIONS: European rural PCPs report poorer access to investigations but are at least as likely as urban PCPs to investigate or refer patients that might have cancer at the index consultation.