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.
Background: Black cisgender women in the United States experience a disproportionate burden of human immunodeficiency virus acquisition. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is an effective oral daily medication that reduces the risk of human immunodeficiency virus through sex by 99% when taken as prescribed. However, less than 2% of eligible Black cisgender women take pre-exposure prophylaxis. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe the types of research studies done in this area, gaps in knowledge, and potential areas of research needed to increase pre-exposure prophylaxis use among Black cisgender women in the United States. Methods: We conducted our search in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and Scopus (Elsevier) using a combination of keywords and database-specific subject headings for the following concepts: pre-exposure prophylaxis, African American/Black or minority, and women. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute’s Reviewers’ Manual process for Scoping Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews to ensure comprehensive and standardized reporting of each part of the review. Results: Fifty-nine studies were included in the final review. Results of the study were classified according to the three phases of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention Cascade—demand side, supply side, and adherence and retention. The majority of studies ( n = 24, 41%) were cross-sectional quantitative surveys and 43 (34%) focused on the demand-side phase of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention Cascade. Fifty-eight percent of studies either assessed women’s pre-exposure prophylaxis knowledge, attitudes, and intentions to use, or assessed perceived barriers and facilitators. Seven studies (12%) tested pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and adherence among Black cisgender women. Conclusion: This review found multiple missed opportunities to increase women’s demand for pre-exposure prophylaxis and health care provider screening and referral for pre-exposure prophylaxis. Additional studies are needed to effectively assess pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and adherence among Black cisgender women.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.