Rural dwellers are less likely to survive cancer

an international review and meta-analysis

Romi Carriere, Rosalind Adam, Shona Fielding, Raphae S. Barlas, Yuhan Ong, Peter Murchie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
Existing research from several countries has suggested that rural-dwellers may have poorer cancer survival than urban-dwellers. However, to date, the global literature has not been systematically reviewed to determine whether a rural cancer survival disadvantage is a global phenomenon.

Methods
Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing rural and urban cancer survival. At least two authors independently screened and selected studies. We included epidemiological studies comparing cancer survival between urban and rural residents (however defined) that also took socioeconomic status into account. A meta-analysis was conducted using 11 studies with binary rural:urban classifications to determine the magnitude and direction of the association between rurality and differences in cancer survival. The mechanisms for urban-rural cancer survival differences reported were narratively synthesised in all 39 studies.

Findings
39 studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies conducted in developed countries. Rural-dwellers were significantly more likely to die when they developed cancer compared to urban-dwellers (HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 – 1.07). Potential mechanisms were aggregated into an ecological model under the following themes: Patient Level Characteristics; Institutions; Community, Culture and Environment; Policy and Service Organization.

Interpretation
Rural residents were 5% less likely to survive cancer. This effect was consistently observed across studies conducted in various geographical regions and using multiple definitions of rurality. High quality mixed-methods research is required to comprehensively evaluate the underlying factors. We have proposed an ecological model to provide a coherent framework for future explanatory research.

Funding
None.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)219-227
Number of pages9
JournalHealth & Place
Volume53
Early online date5 Sep 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2018

Fingerprint

meta-analysis
Meta-Analysis
cancer
Survival
Neoplasms
Research
resident
socioeconomic status
geographical region
research method
Developed Countries
Social Class
Observational Studies
Epidemiologic Studies
social status
Retrospective Studies
Organizations
organization
community

Cite this

Rural dwellers are less likely to survive cancer : an international review and meta-analysis. / Carriere, Romi; Adam, Rosalind; Fielding, Shona; Barlas, Raphae S.; Ong, Yuhan; Murchie, Peter.

In: Health & Place, Vol. 53, 09.2018, p. 219-227.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{57091c3fb5a54b7b894c3247053bc5d7,
title = "Rural dwellers are less likely to survive cancer: an international review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "BackgroundExisting research from several countries has suggested that rural-dwellers may have poorer cancer survival than urban-dwellers. However, to date, the global literature has not been systematically reviewed to determine whether a rural cancer survival disadvantage is a global phenomenon.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing rural and urban cancer survival. At least two authors independently screened and selected studies. We included epidemiological studies comparing cancer survival between urban and rural residents (however defined) that also took socioeconomic status into account. A meta-analysis was conducted using 11 studies with binary rural:urban classifications to determine the magnitude and direction of the association between rurality and differences in cancer survival. The mechanisms for urban-rural cancer survival differences reported were narratively synthesised in all 39 studies.Findings39 studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies conducted in developed countries. Rural-dwellers were significantly more likely to die when they developed cancer compared to urban-dwellers (HR 1.05 (95{\%} CI 1.02 – 1.07). Potential mechanisms were aggregated into an ecological model under the following themes: Patient Level Characteristics; Institutions; Community, Culture and Environment; Policy and Service Organization.InterpretationRural residents were 5{\%} less likely to survive cancer. This effect was consistently observed across studies conducted in various geographical regions and using multiple definitions of rurality. High quality mixed-methods research is required to comprehensively evaluate the underlying factors. We have proposed an ecological model to provide a coherent framework for future explanatory research.FundingNone.",
author = "Romi Carriere and Rosalind Adam and Shona Fielding and Barlas, {Raphae S.} and Yuhan Ong and Peter Murchie",
note = "Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.010.",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.010",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "219--227",
journal = "Health & Place",
issn = "1353-8292",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rural dwellers are less likely to survive cancer

T2 - an international review and meta-analysis

AU - Carriere, Romi

AU - Adam, Rosalind

AU - Fielding, Shona

AU - Barlas, Raphae S.

AU - Ong, Yuhan

AU - Murchie, Peter

N1 - Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.010.

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - BackgroundExisting research from several countries has suggested that rural-dwellers may have poorer cancer survival than urban-dwellers. However, to date, the global literature has not been systematically reviewed to determine whether a rural cancer survival disadvantage is a global phenomenon.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing rural and urban cancer survival. At least two authors independently screened and selected studies. We included epidemiological studies comparing cancer survival between urban and rural residents (however defined) that also took socioeconomic status into account. A meta-analysis was conducted using 11 studies with binary rural:urban classifications to determine the magnitude and direction of the association between rurality and differences in cancer survival. The mechanisms for urban-rural cancer survival differences reported were narratively synthesised in all 39 studies.Findings39 studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies conducted in developed countries. Rural-dwellers were significantly more likely to die when they developed cancer compared to urban-dwellers (HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 – 1.07). Potential mechanisms were aggregated into an ecological model under the following themes: Patient Level Characteristics; Institutions; Community, Culture and Environment; Policy and Service Organization.InterpretationRural residents were 5% less likely to survive cancer. This effect was consistently observed across studies conducted in various geographical regions and using multiple definitions of rurality. High quality mixed-methods research is required to comprehensively evaluate the underlying factors. We have proposed an ecological model to provide a coherent framework for future explanatory research.FundingNone.

AB - BackgroundExisting research from several countries has suggested that rural-dwellers may have poorer cancer survival than urban-dwellers. However, to date, the global literature has not been systematically reviewed to determine whether a rural cancer survival disadvantage is a global phenomenon.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing rural and urban cancer survival. At least two authors independently screened and selected studies. We included epidemiological studies comparing cancer survival between urban and rural residents (however defined) that also took socioeconomic status into account. A meta-analysis was conducted using 11 studies with binary rural:urban classifications to determine the magnitude and direction of the association between rurality and differences in cancer survival. The mechanisms for urban-rural cancer survival differences reported were narratively synthesised in all 39 studies.Findings39 studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies conducted in developed countries. Rural-dwellers were significantly more likely to die when they developed cancer compared to urban-dwellers (HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 – 1.07). Potential mechanisms were aggregated into an ecological model under the following themes: Patient Level Characteristics; Institutions; Community, Culture and Environment; Policy and Service Organization.InterpretationRural residents were 5% less likely to survive cancer. This effect was consistently observed across studies conducted in various geographical regions and using multiple definitions of rurality. High quality mixed-methods research is required to comprehensively evaluate the underlying factors. We have proposed an ecological model to provide a coherent framework for future explanatory research.FundingNone.

U2 - 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.010

DO - 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.010

M3 - Article

VL - 53

SP - 219

EP - 227

JO - Health & Place

JF - Health & Place

SN - 1353-8292

ER -