Sarah A Ackroyd1, Ya-Chen Tina Shih2, Bumyang Kim2, Nita K Lee3, Michael T Halpern4. 1. University of Chicago Medicine, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, 5841 S Maryland Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. Electronic address: Sarah.Ackroyd@uchospitals.edu. 2. Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1444, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 3. University of Chicago Medicine, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, 5841 S Maryland Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. 4. Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20892, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to examine the geographic distribution of gynecologic oncologists (GO) and assess if the GO workforce is meeting the demand for oncology services for patients with gynecologic cancers. METHODS: We identified GO by National Provider Identifiers (NPI) and calculated county-level density of GO. County-level gynecologic cancer rates were derived from the U.S. Cancer Statistics to represent demand for GO services. A spatial data plot compared GO workforce to gynecologic cancer service demand. U.S. census county-level demographic information was collected and compared. RESULTS: In 2019, 1527 GO had a registered NPI. Of 3142 counties in the US, 2864 (91.2%) counties had no GO in their local county and 1943 (61.8%) counties had no GO in local or adjacent (neighboring) counties. As the gynecologic cancer rate increases (described in quintiles) in counties, there are fewer counties without a GO or adjacent GO. However, county-level GO density (number of GO per 100,000 women) did not significantly increase as the county-level incidence of gynecologic cancer increased (r = -0.12, p = 0.06)… Women living in counties with the highest gynecologic cancer rates and without access to a GO were more likely to reside in a rural area where residents had a lower median income and were predominately of White race.. CONCLUSION: There are a significant number of counties in the U.S. without a GO. As county-level gynecologic cancer incidence increased, the proportion of counties without a GO decreased; GO density did not increase with increasing cancer rates. Rural counties with high gynecologic incidence rates are underserved by GO. This information can inform initiatives to improve outreach and collaboration to better meet the needs of patients in different geographic areas.
OBJECTIVE: to examine the geographic distribution of gynecologic oncologists (GO) and assess if the GO workforce is meeting the demand for oncology services for patients with gynecologic cancers. METHODS: We identified GO by National Provider Identifiers (NPI) and calculated county-level density of GO. County-level gynecologic cancer rates were derived from the U.S. Cancer Statistics to represent demand for GO services. A spatial data plot compared GO workforce to gynecologic cancer service demand. U.S. census county-level demographic information was collected and compared. RESULTS: In 2019, 1527 GO had a registered NPI. Of 3142 counties in the US, 2864 (91.2%) counties had no GO in their local county and 1943 (61.8%) counties had no GO in local or adjacent (neighboring) counties. As the gynecologic cancer rate increases (described in quintiles) in counties, there are fewer counties without a GO or adjacent GO. However, county-level GO density (number of GO per 100,000 women) did not significantly increase as the county-level incidence of gynecologic cancer increased (r = -0.12, p = 0.06)… Women living in counties with the highest gynecologic cancer rates and without access to a GO were more likely to reside in a rural area where residents had a lower median income and were predominately of White race.. CONCLUSION: There are a significant number of counties in the U.S. without a GO. As county-level gynecologic cancer incidence increased, the proportion of counties without a GO decreased; GO density did not increase with increasing cancer rates. Rural counties with high gynecologic incidence rates are underserved by GO. This information can inform initiatives to improve outreach and collaboration to better meet the needs of patients in different geographic areas.
Authors: Catherine M DesRoches; Kirsten A Barrett; Bonnie E Harvey; Rachel Kogan; James D Reschovsky; Bruce E Landon; Lawrence P Casalino; Stephen M Shortell; Eugene C Rich Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: David A Barrington; Sarah E Dilley; Emily E Landers; Eric D Thomas; Jonathon D Boone; J Michael Straughn; Gerald McGwin; Charles A Leath Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Katherine Hicks-Courant; Genevieve P Kanter; Robert L Giuntoli; Marilyn M Schapira; Justin E Bekelman; Nawar A Latif; Ashley F Haggerty; Mark A Morgan; Robert Burger; Emily M Ko Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Cheryl Mercado; David Zingmond; Beth Y Karlan; Evan Sekaris; Jenny Gross; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; James S Tomlinson; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 5.482