Dataset Information

The need to study rural cancer outcome disparities at the local level: a retrospective cohort study in Kansas and Missouri.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rural residence is commonly thought to be a risk factor for poor cancer outcomes. However, a number of studies have reported seemingly conflicting information regarding cancer outcome disparities with respect to rural residence, with some suggesting that the disparity is not present and others providing inconsistent evidence that either urban or rural residence is associated with poorer outcomes. We suggest a simple explanation for these seeming contradictions: namely that rural cancer outcome disparities are related to factors that occur differentially at a local level, such as environmental exposures, lack of access to care or screening, and socioeconomic factors, which differ by type of cancer.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining ten cancers treated at the University of Kansas Medical Center from 2011 to 2018, with individuals from either rural or urban residences. We defined urban residences as those in a county with a U.S. Department of Agriculture Urban Influence Code (UIC) of 1 or 2, with all other residences defines a rural. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to create a pseudo-sample balanced for covariates deemed likely to affect the outcomes modeled with cumulative link and weighted Cox-proportional hazards models.

Results

We found that rural residence is not a simple risk factor but rather appears to play a complex role in cancer outcome disparities. Specifically, rural residence is associated with higher stage at diagnosis and increased survival hazards for colon cancer but decreased risk for lung cancer compared to urban residence.

Conclusion

Many cancers are affected by unique social and environmental factors that may vary between rural and urban residents, such as access to care, diet, and lifestyle. Our results show that rurality can increase or decrease risk, depending on cancer site, which suggests the need to consider the factors connected to rurality that influence this complex pattern. Thus, we argue that such disparities must be studied at the local level to identify and design appropriate interventions to improve cancer outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Thompson JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8611913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextLocal health departments (LHDs) play a vital role in community vaccination programs for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, but little research has been done to assess LHD interest in cross-sectoral partnerships to vaccinate high-risk groups, specifically incarcerated persons.ObjectiveTo describe factors associated with interest in a novel implementation strategy linking LHDs with jails in 4 Midwestern states to deliver HPV vaccine.DesignSurvey based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) model given to LHD administrators. A modified Poisson relative risk regression was used to assess the relationship between independent variables and LHD interest in implementation of a jail-based HPV vaccination program.SettingLHDs in Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska.ParticipantsFrom September 2017 to April 2018, two-thirds (237/344) of invited LHD administrators from the 4 states responded to the survey.Main outcome measureLHD interest in implementation of a jail-based HPV vaccination program.ResultsForty-five percent of LHDs were interested in learning more about implementing a jail-based HPV vaccination program, and 2% already offered or had plans to offer HPV vaccine in their jails. Barriers to implementation were cost (66%), inmates' short incarcerations (47%), and availability of medical staffing (43%). LHD characteristics associated with interest in implementation of a jail-based HPV vaccination program included "inner setting" CFIR variables, which capture the structural and cultural context for program implementation: 7 or more employees (odds ratio [OR] = 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-3.95), perception of importance to provide HPV vaccine in jails (OR = 3.70; 95% CI, 2.00-6.84), and already providing any vaccines in jails (OR = 2.62; 95% CI, 1.18-5.80).ConclusionsNearly half of LHDs in the region expressed interest in partnering with local entities to meet HPV vaccination needs of high-risk groups. Research on cross-sectoral partnerships and what these collaborations look like in practice is needed for public health impact.