Devon Noonan1, Matthew LeBlanc1, Cherie Conley1, Habtamu Benecha2, Ashley Leak-Bryant3, Kellen Peter1, Sheryl Zimmerman4, Deborah Mayer3,5, Sophia Smith1. 1. Cancer Control and Populations Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Formerly at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Biostatistics, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: People living in rural areas experience greater health disparities than their nonrural counterparts, but little is known about the association between rural status and quality of life (QOL) in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) survivors. We compared self-reported quality of life and impact of cancer in rural and nonrural NHL survivors. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of 566 NHL cancer survivors recruited from cancer registries at 2 large academic medical centers in 1 state. Standardized measures collected information on demographics and clinical characteristics, quality of life (QOL; SF-36), and the Impact of Cancer (IOCv2). Rural residence was determined by Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes designated as nonmetropolitan. Multiple linear regression analysis, adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates, was used to evaluate the relationship between rural residence and QOL and impact of cancer. FINDINGS: Among the 566 participants (83% response rate), rural residence was independently associated with lower SF-36 physical component summary scores and the physical function subscale (all P < .05). Rural residence was also associated with higher IOCv2 positive impact scores and the subscales of altruism/empathy and meaning of cancer scores in the adjusted models (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Given documented rural cancer disparities and the lack of resources in rural communities, study findings support the continued need to provide supportive care to rural cancer survivors to improve their QOL. Consistent with previous research, rural residence status is associated with increased positive impact following cancer diagnosis.
PURPOSE:People living in rural areas experience greater health disparities than their nonrural counterparts, but little is known about the association between rural status and quality of life (QOL) in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) survivors. We compared self-reported quality of life and impact of cancer in rural and nonrural NHL survivors. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of 566 NHL cancer survivors recruited from cancer registries at 2 large academic medical centers in 1 state. Standardized measures collected information on demographics and clinical characteristics, quality of life (QOL; SF-36), and the Impact of Cancer (IOCv2). Rural residence was determined by Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes designated as nonmetropolitan. Multiple linear regression analysis, adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates, was used to evaluate the relationship between rural residence and QOL and impact of cancer. FINDINGS: Among the 566 participants (83% response rate), rural residence was independently associated with lower SF-36 physical component summary scores and the physical function subscale (all P < .05). Rural residence was also associated with higher IOCv2 positive impact scores and the subscales of altruism/empathy and meaning of cancer scores in the adjusted models (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Given documented rural cancer disparities and the lack of resources in rural communities, study findings support the continued need to provide supportive care to rural cancer survivors to improve their QOL. Consistent with previous research, rural residence status is associated with increased positive impact following cancer diagnosis.
Authors: Phyllis N Butow; Fiona Phillips; Janine Schweder; Kate White; Craig Underhill; David Goldstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.603