The Health and Welfare of Rural and Urban Cancer Survivors in Missouri

Schootman, Mario; Homan, Sherri; Weaver, Kathryn E.; Jeffe, Donna B.; Yun, Shumei

doi:10.5888/pcd10.130052

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Schootman et al (2013) conducted the only statistical tests of determinants of SCP receipt in their study of Missouri cancer survivors, 24% of survivors received SCP; rural survivors were less likely than urban survivors to receive a SCP. 41 Some of the studies identified the nurse as the person who delivered the SCP. 15, 21, 31, 31 However most inferred that the oncologist was responsible for delivering the SCP.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Outcomes of interest included SCP use in cancer programs and among cancer care providers (6 of 14 studies); survivor and PCP receipt of SCP (5 of 14 studies); retention of SCP (1 of 14 studies); and determinants of SCP use (7 of 14 studies). 26,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] All of these studies are summarized in Table 3. To measure these outcomes, most SCP dissemination and implementation studies used surveys (11 of 14 studies); 2 used interviews; and 1 used both interviews and focus groups.…”

Section: Dissemination and Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Summing it up: An integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006‐2013)

Mayer

Birken

Check

et al. 2014

Cancer

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Institute of Medicine (2006) recommended that cancer survivors completing primary treatment receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) based on face validity. The state of scientific knowledge regarding SCP is unclear. We conducted an integrative review of existing evidence regarding SCP. Methods We searched MEDLINE /PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for relevant studies published between 2006 – 2013 using a combination of keywords: ‘survivors,’ ‘survivorship,’ ‘care plans,’ ‘care planning,’ ‘treatment summaries’ and ‘cancer.’ Articles were included if they (1) reported results of an empirical study; (2) included cancer survivors diagnosed at age 18 or older; (3) related to SCP; and (4) were published in English. A total of 781 records were retrieved; 77 were duplicates, 665 were abstracts or presentations, did not relate to SCP for adults or were not empirical – leaving 42 for inclusion in this review. Results Studies regarding SCP fell into three categories: (a) content (n=14); (b) dissemination and implementation (n=14); and (c) survivor and provider outcomes (n=14). SCP were endorsed and associated with improved knowledge, but SCP use remains sporadic. Only 4 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that avoided many biases associated with observational studies. Other limitations included cross-sectional or pre-post designs, limited generalizability due to lacking sample diversity, and lack of systematic testing of data collection tools. Conclusions The quantity and quality of SCP research is limited. SCP were endorsed, but evidence of improved outcomes associated with SCP is limited. Future research that addresses extant studies’ methodological concerns is needed regarding SCP use, content, and outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dissemination and Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Summing it up: An integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006‐2013)

Mayer

Birken

Check

et al. 2014

Cancer

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Out-of-pocket costs and burden among rural breast cancer survivors Maria Pisu 1,2 , Andres Azuero 2,3 , Rachel Benz 3 , Patrick McNees 2,4,5 & Karen Meneses 2,3 report worse physical and mental health as well as being more likely to be unemployed due to health reasons than their urban counterparts [14][15][16]. They also face several challenges in accessing care due to scarce medical resources and the need to travel longer distances to visit doctors and receive care [17][18][19].…”

Section: Original Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The population of rural cancer survivors deserves some attention with regard to the OOP costs they may incur and the burden that these may cause. Rural cancer survivors report worse physical and mental health as well as being more likely to be unemployed due to health reasons than their urban counterparts . They also face several challenges in accessing care due to scarce medical resources and the need to travel longer distances to visit doctors and receive care .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Out‐of‐pocket costs and burden among rural breast cancer survivors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about out‐of‐pocket (OOP) costs incurred for medical and health needs by rural breast cancer survivors and what factors may be associated with higher OOP costs and the associated economic burden. Data were examined for 432 survivors participating in the Rural Breast Cancer Survivor Intervention trial. OOP costs were collected using the Work and Finances Inventory survey at baseline and four assessments every 3 months. Mean and median OOP costs and burden (percent of monthly income spent on OOP costs) were reported and factors associated with OOP costs and burden identified with generalized linear models fitted with over‐dispersed gamma distributions and logarithmic links (OOP costs) and with beta distributions with logit link (OOP burden). OOP costs per month since the end of treatment were on average $232.7 (median $95.6), declined at the next assessment point to $186.5 (median $89.1), and thereafter remained at that level. Mean OOP burden was 9% at baseline and between 7% and 8% at the next assessments. Factors suggestive of contributing to higher OOP costs and OOP burden were the following: younger age, lower income, time in survivorship from diagnosis, and use of supportive services. OOP costs burden rural breast cancer survivors, particularly those who are younger and low income. Research should investigate the impact of OOP costs and interventions to reduce economic burden.

show abstract

“…Both quantitative and qualitative measurements indicated that the concept of rurality was a risk factor for low mental health, low quality of life, low physical wellbeing, poor self-rated health, higher level of distress, smoking and lower level of physical activities 3,4,8,9,11,14,22,23 . A summary of the key variables/ measurements for both quantitative and qualitative studies is provided in Tables 1 and 2.…”

Section: Descriptive Findings and Measurement Tools For Assessing Carmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting provision of care services for patients with cancer living in the rural area: an integrative review

Salehi

Frommolt

Coyne

2019

AJCN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explored individual-and system-level factors affecting the provision of care services for rural patients. An integrated literature review across four databases identified 22 studies from six countries. A focus on health and wellbeing and the influence of rurality was explored. Findings indicate physical and functional health in rural cancer patients is lower in comparison with urban areas. Influencing factors were socio-economic status, age, income, health literacy, control and self-efficacy. Enhancing the strengths and education of caregivers and their inclusion in service decision-making are paramount for rural cancer patients and for the wellbeing of the caregivers. Disparities in rural areas need to be explored with longitudinal research to understand the clinical, social and cultural characteristics in relation to remoteness. The use of innovative technologies has been recommended as an option to enhance the health access and enable quality care provision across rural areas. Knowledge translation• The facilitation of access to innovative health care to balance the disparities of rural people (telehealth, online support groups, follow-up phone calls, enticement for specialist care in rural areas).• A holistic approach with education and support provided to the family is particularly important for rural patients as the family is a key source of social, emotional and informational support over the journey.Although there has been increasing research regarding the needs of cancer patients (health care, community, social care needs), there has been little focus on the care needs of patients in rural areas 2 . The number of rural patients is under-examined in the Keywords Rural cancer patients, cancer caregiver, health resources, literature review.

show abstract

The Health and Welfare of Rural and Urban Cancer Survivors in Missouri

Cited by 30 publications

References 24 publications

Summing it up: An integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006‐2013)

Summing it up: An integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006‐2013)

Out‐of‐pocket costs and burden among rural breast cancer survivors

Factors affecting provision of care services for patients with cancer living in the rural area: an integrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About