| Literature DB >> 35047064 |
Atul M Budukh1,2, Debashish Chaudhary3,4, Sankalp Sancheti3,5, Tapas Dora3, Alok Kumar Goel3, Anshul Singla3, Akash Sali3, Shraddha Shinde6, Kuldeep Singh Chauhan6, Prithviraj Kadam6, Raza Mohammad6,7, Rakesh Kapoor3,8, Pankaj Chaturvedi1, Rajesh P Dikshit1,9, Rajendra A Badwe1,10.
Abstract
In low and middle-income countries, access to cancer diagnosis and treatment is suboptimal. Further, compliance to cancer treatment is a major issue due to various reasons including financial barriers, lack of family support and fear of treatment. This article discusses the determinants of treatment completion in cancer patients of a government-run hospital, in a rural part of Punjab in India. The Sangrur hospital-based cancer registry data for the year 2018 have been used. We have registered 2,969 cancer cases, out of which 2,528 (85%) cases were eligible for the analysis. Of the total 2,528 cases, 1,362 (54%) cases completed the cancer directed treatment and 1,166 (46%) did not. The data have been collected from the electronic medical record (EMR) department and entered into CanReg5 software. The bivariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed to see the effect of variables on the treatment completion. The results indicate that the elderly age group (>60 years) (odds ratio (OR): 0.52, (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31-0.86)), distance from hospital (OR: 0.67, (95% CI: 0.50-0.89)) and access to government health schemes (OR: 0.13, (95% CI: 0.10-0.19)] have direct correlation with the treatment completion. The educated patients (OR: 1.49, (95% CI: 1.13-1.96)) and patients who received curative treatment (OR: 2.7, (95% CI: 1.88-3.88)) have shown 58% and 84% compliance to treatment completion, respectively. The other variables like the clinical extent of disease, religion, gender and income do not have any significant effect on the treatment completion. Determinants like age (young), education, distance from the hospital, curative treatment and availability of government health schemes for financial support have shown positive effects on treatment completion. These factors have to be considered by the cancer hospitals, health departments and policymakers while planning for cancer care or control in India. © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.Entities:
Keywords: India; cancer care; declining cancer treatment; registry; rural health care; treatment compliance
Year: 2021 PMID: 35047064 PMCID: PMC8723738 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2021.1313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecancermedicalscience ISSN: 1754-6605
Figure 1.Location of HBCH, Sangrur, Punjab state, India.
Figure 2.Cancer case registration method.
Socio-demographic characteristics of the cancer patient treated in the HBCH: 2018.
| Socio-demographic characteristics | Frequency ( | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Age (in years) | ||
| <40 | 275 | 10.9 |
| 40–59 | 1,152 | 45.6 |
| 60+ | 1,101 | 43.6 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 1,158 | 45.8 |
| Female | 1,370 | 54.2 |
| Income (INR per month) | ||
| High (>30,374) | 107 | 4.2 |
| Medium(11,362–30,374) | 159 | 6.3 |
| Low (<11,362) | 2,262 | 89.5 |
| Religion | ||
| Sikh | 1,725 | 68.2 |
| Hindu | 710 | 28.1 |
| Others | 93 | 3.7 |
| Education | ||
| Illiterate | 1,403 | 55.5 |
| Literate | 1,125 | 44.5 |
| District | ||
| Sangrur | 944 | 37.3 |
| Other district | 1,584 | 62.7 |
| State | ||
| Punjab | 2,282 | 90.3 |
| Other state | 246 | 9.7 |
| Type of case | ||
| Old case | 515 | 20.4 |
| New case | 2,013 | 79.6 |
| Clinical extent | ||
| Localisation | 554 | 21.9 |
| Loco-regional | 922 | 36.5 |
| Distant metastasis | 704 | 27.9 |
| Not applicable/unknown | 348 | 13.8 |
| Intent of treatment | ||
| Palliative | 536 | 21.2 |
| Curative | 1,186 | 46.9 |
| Not applicable | 806 | 31.9 |
| Payment mode | ||
| Govt. scheme eligible & applied | 1,164 | 46.0 |
| Govt. scheme eligible & not applied | 818 | 32.4 |
| By own | 312 | 12.3 |
| Govt. employees to file for reimbursement/other health insurance scheme | 234 | 9.3 |
Figure 3.Leading cancer sites at HBCR in males: 2018.
Figure 4.Leading cancer sites at HBCR in females: 2018.
Treatment details of the cancer patient treated in the HBCH: 2018.
| Treatment | Male | Female | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Surgery | 58 | 5.0 | 68 | 5.0 | 126 | 5.0 |
| CT | 103 | 8.9 | 133 | 9.7 | 236 | 9.3 |
| RT | 103 | 8.9 | 106 | 7.7 | 209 | 8.3 |
| CT + RT | 205 | 17.7 | 208 | 15.2 | 413 | 16.3 |
| Surgery + CT | 28 | 2.4 | 53 | 3.9 | 81 | 3.2 |
| Surgery + RT | 58 | 5.0 | 47 | 3.4 | 105 | 4.2 |
| Surgery + CT + RT | 50 | 4.3 | 142 | 10.4 | 192 | 7.6 |
| No treatment | 553 | 47.8 | 613 | 44.7 | 1166 | 46.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CT, Chemotherapy
RT, Radiotherapy
Univariate and multivariate analysis to know the effect of study variables on the treatment completion.
| All sites | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socio-demographic characteristics | Treatment completed | Treatment not completed | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
| OR |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) |
| |||
| Total = 2,528 | 1,362 (53.9%) | 1,166 (46.1%) | ||||
| Age (in years) | ||||||
| <40® | 173 (62.9%) | 102 (37.1%) | 1 | 1 | ||
| 40–59 | 667 (57.9%) | 485 (42.1%) | 0.81 (0.62–1.06) | 0.130 | 0.63 (0.38–1.03) | 0.066 |
| 60+ | 522 (47.4%) | 579 (52.6%) | 0.53 (0.41–0.70) | 0.000 | 0.52 (0.31–0.86) | 0.011 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male® | 605 (52.3%) | 553 (47.7%) | 1 | |||
| Female | 757 (55.3%) | 613 (44.7%) | 1.13 (0.96–1.32) | 0.130 | ||
| Income (INR per month) | ||||||
| High (>30,374)® | 53 (49.5%) | 54 (50.47%) | 1 | |||
| Medium (11,362–30,374) | 95 (59.8%) | 64 (40.2%) | 1.51 (0.92–2.48) | 0.101 | ||
| Low (<11,362) | 1,214 (53.7%) | 1,048 (46.3%) | 1.18 (0.80–1.74) | 0.402 | ||
| Religion | ||||||
| Sikh® | 916 (53.1%) | 809 (46.9%) | 1 | |||
| Hindu | 394 (55.5%) | 316 (44.5%) | 1.10 (0.92–1.31) | 0.282 | ||
| Others | 52 (55.9%) | 41 (44.1%) | 1.12 (0.74–1.71) | 0.597 | ||
| Education | ||||||
| Illiterate® | 715 (51.0%) | 688 (49.0%) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Literate | 647 (57.5%) | 478 (42.5%) | 1.30 (1.11–1.53) | 0.001 | 1.49 (1.13–1.96) | 0.004 |
| District | ||||||
| Sangrur® | 543 (57.5%) | 401 (42.5%) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other district | 819 (51.7%) | 765 (48.3%) | 0.79 (0.67–0.93) | 0.005 | 0.67 (0.50–0.89) | 0.006 |
| State | ||||||
| Punjab® | 1230 (53.9%) | 1052 (46.1%) | 1 | |||
| Other state | 132 (53.7%) | 114 (46.3%) | 0.99 (0.76–1.29) | 0.942 | ||
| Type of case | ||||||
| Old case® | 256 (49.7%) | 259 (50.3%) | 1 | 1 | ||
| New case | 1,106 (54.9%) | 907 (45.1%) | 1.23 (1.02–1.50) | 0.034 | 0.70 (0.50–0.98) | 0.037 |
| Clinical extent | ||||||
| Localisation® | 337 (60.8%) | 217 (39.2%) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Loco-regional | 571 (61.9%) | 351 (38.1%) | 1.05 (0.84–1.30) | 0.674 | 0.89 (0.62–1.27) | 0.508 |
| Distant metastasis | 357 (50.7%) | 347 (49.3%) | 0.66 (0.53–0.83) | 0.000 | 1.19 (0.75–1.89) | 0.464 |
| Not applicable/unknown | 97 (27.9%) | 251 (72.1%) | 0.25 (0.19–0.33) | 0.000 | 0.91 (0.54–1.58) | 0.766 |
| Intent of treatment | ||||||
| Palliative® | 366 (68.3%) | 170 (31.7%) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Curative | 996 (84.0%) | 190 (16.0%) | 2.43 (1.92–3.09) | 0.000 | 2.70 (1.88–3.88) | 0.000 |
| Not applicable | - | 806 (100%) | - | - | - | - |
| Payment mode | ||||||
| Govt. scheme eligible & applied® | 956 (82.1%) | 208 (17.9%) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Govt. scheme eligible & not applied | 138 (16.9%) | 680 (83.1%) | 0.04 (0.03–0.06) | 0.000 | 0.13 (0.10–0.19) | 0.000 |
| By own | 149 (47.8%) | 163 (52.2%) | 0.20 (0.15–0.26) | 0.000 | 0.36 (0.25–0.53) | 0.000 |
| Govt. employees to file for reimbursement/other health insurance scheme | 119 (50.9%) | 115 (49.1%) | 0.23 (0.17–0.30) | 0.000 | 0.48 (0.29–0.77) | 0.003 |
®, Reference; N (%), Frequency (percentage); CI, Confidence interval