What is known about the role of rural-urban residency in relation to self-management in people affected by cancer who have completed primary treatment? A scoping review

Implementing the European code of cancer practice in rural settings

Existing evidence often indicates higher cancer incidence and mortality rates, later diagnosis, lower screening uptake and poorer long-term survival for people living in rural compared to more urbanised areas. Despite wide inequities and variation in cancer care and outcomes across Europe, much of the scientific literature explicitly exploring the impact of rurality on cancer continues to come from Australia and North America. The European Code of Cancer Practice or "The Code" is a citizen and patient-centred statement of the most salient requirements for good clinical cancer practice and has been extensively co-produced by cancer patients, cancer professionals and patient advocates. It contains 10 key overarching Rights that a cancer patient should expect from their healthcare system, regardless of where they live and has been strongly endorsed by professional and patient cancer organisations as well as the European Commission. In this article, we use these 10 fundamental Rights as a framework to argue that (i) the issues and needs identified in The Code are generally more profound for rural people with cancer; (ii) addressing these issues is also more challenging in rural contexts; (iii) interventions and support must explicitly account for the unique needs of rural residents living with and affected by cancer and (iv) new innovative approaches are urgently required to successfully overcome the challenges faced by rural people with cancer and their caregivers. Despite equitable healthcare being a key European policy focus, the needs of rural people living with cancer have largely been neglected.

Cancer Survivors Living in Rural Settings: A Qualitative Exploration of Concerns, Positive Experiences and Suggestions for Improvements in Survivorship Care

In Canada, the number of cancer survivors continues to increase. It is important to understand what continues to present difficulties after the completion of treatment from their perspectives. Various factors may present barriers to accessing help for the challenges they experience following treatment. Living rurally may be one such factor. This study was undertaken to explore the major challenges, positive experiences and suggestions for improvement in survivorship care from rural-dwelling Canadian cancer survivors one to three years following treatment. A qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted on written responses to open-ended questions from a national cross-sectional survey. A total of 4646 individuals living in rural areas responded to the survey. Fifty percent (2327) were male, and 2296 (49.4%) were female; 69 respondents were 18 to 29 years (1.5%); 1638 (35.3%) were 30 to 64 years; and 2926 (63.0%) were 65 years or older. The most frequently identified major challenges (n = 5448) were reduced physical capacity and the effects of treatment. Positive experiences included family and friend support and positive self-care practices. The suggestions for improvements focused on the need for better communication and information about self-care, side effect management, and programs and services, with more programs available locally for practical and emotional support.

Health-Promoting Behaviours following Primary Treatment for Cancer: A Rural-Urban Comparison from a Cross-Sectional Study

AIM

To compare health-promoting behaviours among rural and urban residents following primary treatment for cancer.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey collecting demographic variables and data pertaining to health-promoting behaviours, documented using the 52-item Health Promotion Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II) measure, which is categorised into six subscales: (1) health responsibility, (2) spiritual growth, (3) physical activity, (4) interpersonal relations, (5) nutrition, and (6) stress management. Residence was defined using the U.K. Office for National Statistics RUC 2011 Rural Urban Classifications. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Decile was used to measure deprivation. Quantitative data were analysed using independent samples t-test and multiple linear regression. Qualitative data from open-ended questions were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

In total, 227 participants with a range of cancer types completed the questionnaire. Fifty-three percent were residents in urban areas and forty-five percent in rural areas. Rural participants scored significantly higher on health responsibility (p = 0.001), nutrition (p = 0.001), spiritual growth (p = 0.004), and interpersonal relationships (p = 0.001), as well as on the overall HPLP-II (p = 0.001). When controlling for deprivation, age, marital status, and education, rural-urban residence was a significant predictor of exhibiting health-promoting behaviours. A central theme from the qualitative data was the concept of "moving on" from cancer following treatment, by making adjustments to physical, social, psychological, spiritual, and emotional wellbeing.

CONCLUSIONS

This research revealed, for the first time, differences in health-promoting behaviours among rural and urban U.K. populations who have completed primary cancer treatment. Rural residence can provide a positive environment for engaging with health-promoting behaviours following a cancer diagnosis and treatment.

A Rapid Systematic Review on the Experiences of Cancer Survivors Residing in Rural Areas during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable disruption to cancer care and may have exacerbated existing challenges already faced by cancer survivors from rural areas. This has created a need for a rapid evidence synthesis to inform the development of tailored interventions that address the specific needs of rural cancer survivors who continue to be affected by the pandemic. The review was conducted following guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group. Database searches were performed via the EBSCOHost interface (includes MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) on 25 May 2022 and supplemented with searches on Google Scholar. Peer-reviewed articles published after March 2020 that reported primary data on the experiences of cancer survivors residing in rural and remote settings during the pandemic were included. Findings were tabulated and written up narratively. Fourteen studies were included. The COVID-19 pandemic had a mostly detrimental impact on the experiences of rural cancer survivors. People's individual coping mechanisms were challenging for a range of reasons. Specifically, the pandemic impacted on their ability to access testing, treatment, check-ups and supportive care, their ability to maintain and access social support with close friends and family, as well as negative consequences to their finances and emotional wellbeing with some reporting feelings of psychological distress including depression and anxiety. This review provides important insight into the experiences of rural cancer survivors that may help inform tailored support in line with the needs and challenges faced because of the pandemic.

An Exploration of Rural-Urban Residence on Self-Reported Health Status with UK Cancer Survivors Following Treatment: A Brief Report

Objective: To explore the effect of rural−urban residence on the self-reported health status of UK cancer survivors following primary treatment. Design: A post-positivist approach utilizing a cross-sectional survey that collected data on demographics, postcode and self-reported health status. Methods: An independent samples t test was used to detect differences in health status between rural and urban respondents. Pearson’s χ2 was used to control for confounding variables and a multivariate analysis was conducted using Stepwise linear regression. Setting: East Midlands of England. Participants: Adult cancer survivors who had undergone primary treatment in the last five years. Participants were excluded if they had recurrence or metastatic spread, started active oncology treatment in the last twelve months, and/or were in receipt of palliative or end-of-life care. Main outcome: Residence was measured using the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) RUC2011 Rural−Urban Classifications and Health Status via the UK ONS self-reported health status measure. Ethics: The study was reviewed and approved (Ref: 17/WS/0054) by an NHS Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority (HRA) prior to recruitment and data collection taking place. Results: 227 respondents returned a questionnaire (response rate 27%). Forty-five percent (n = 103) were resident in a rural area and fifty-three percent (n = 120) in an urban area. Rural (4.11 ± 0.85) respondents had significantly (p < 0.001) higher self-reported health statuses compared to urban (3.65 ± 0.93) respondents (MD 0.47; 95% CI 0.23, 0.70). Conclusion: It is hoped that the results will stimulate further work in this area and that researchers will be encouraged to collect data on rural−urban residency where appropriate.

Recovery of Health and Wellbeing in Rural Cancer Survivors Following Primary Treatment: Analysis of UK Qualitative Interview Data

Purpose: Rural cancer survivors have poorer experiences and health outcomes compared to their urban counterparts. There is limited research on the post-treatment experiences of UK cancer survivors residing in rural areas. This study aimed to provide an understanding of the specific challenges and opportunities faced by rural cancer survivors and to provide insight into how rurality influences experiences post-primary treatment, ultimately to inform service provision. Methods: A secondary analysis of in-depth interview transcripts (n = 16) from a wider study on self-management in cancer survivors was conducted. An adapted version of Foster and Fenlon’s recovery of health and wellbeing in cancer survivorship framework informed the data coding. Results: Health and wellbeing were interrupted by a variety of problem incidents, and the subsequent steps to recovery were influenced by pre-existing, personal, environmental, and healthcare factors. A prominent theme was support, both from local communities and family as well as from healthcare professionals, with many survivors feeling that their rural setting had a positive influence on their health and wellbeing. Close relationships with local GPs were seen as fundamental to supporting recovery. Access to healthcare was frequently mentioned as a challenge with an emphasis on lengthy travel times and limited bespoke support in rural areas. Conclusions: This study is novel in that it applied a well-established theoretical framework to a rich qualitative dataset on the lived experiences of rural cancer survivors. Rural residency influenced recovery from cancer both positively and negatively. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Future practitioners and policy makers should consider working with local communities to tailor interventions to the specific characteristics of the rural environment.

Urban–Rural Disparities in the Lung Cancer Surgical Treatment Pathway: The Paradox of a Rich, Small Region

Introduction

Rural populations in large countries often receive delayed or less effective diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer. Differences are related to population-based factors such as lower pro capita income or increased risk factors or to differences in access to facilities. Switzerland is a small, rich country with peculiar geographic and urban characteristics.

We explored the relationship between lung cancer diagnostic–surgical pathway and urban–rural residency in our region.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 280 consecutive patients treated for primary non-small cell lung cancer at our institution (2017–2021). This is a regional tertiary center for diagnosis and treatment, and data were extracted from a prospectively collected clinical database. We included anatomical lung resection. Collected variables included patients and surgical characteristics, risk factors, comorbidities, histology and staging, symptoms (vs. incidental diagnosis), general practitioner (GP) involvement, health insurance, and suspected test-treatment interval. The exposure was rurality, defined by the 2009 rural–urban residency classification from the Department of Land.

Results

A total of 150 patients (54%) lived in rural areas. Rural patients had a higher rate of smoking history (93% vs. 82%; p = 0.007). Symptomatic vs. incidental diagnosis did not differ as well as previous cancer rate, insurance, and pathological staging. In rural patients, there was a greater burden of comorbidities (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index Age-Adjusted 5.3 in rural population vs. 4.8 in urban population, p = 0.05), and GP was more involved in the diagnostic pathway (51% vs. 39%, p = 0.04). The interval between the first suspected test and treatment was significantly shorter (56 vs. 66.5 days, p = 0.03). Multiple linear regression with backward elimination was run. These variables statistically predicted the time from the first suspected test and surgical treatment [F(3, 270), p < .05, R² = 0.24]: rurality (p = 0.04), GP involvement (p = 0.04), and presence of lung cancer-related symptoms (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

In our territory with inhomogeneous population distribution and geographic barriers, residency has an impact on the lung cancer pathway. It seems paradoxical that rural patients had a shorter route. The more constant involvement of GP might explain this finding, having suggested more tests for high-risk patients in the absence of symptoms or follow-ups. This did not change the staging of surgical patients, but it might be essential for the organization of an effective lung cancer screening program.

Physical, emotional, and practical concerns, help-seeking and unmet needs of rural and urban dwelling adult cancer survivors

PURPOSE

This study explores the influence of residency location on the experiences of cancer survivors. The influence of where individuals live during cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment has been described in various countries. However, understanding the context of residency on experiences during survivorship has received less attention.

METHODS

A survey was designed to assess experiences of cancer survivors transitioning to follow-up care. Descriptive statistics were used to contrast physical, emotional, and practical concerns, help-seeking, and unmet needs of rural and urban dwelling respondents. Difference in proportions of greater than 5% were considered clinically meaningful.

RESULTS

In total, 13,319 respondents completed the survey of which 4646 met the criteria for rural dwelling (e.g., living in villages or towns with 10,000 or less residents or on an acreage, ranch, or farm). Proportions of respondents in rural and urban groups were similar in terms of level of concerns. Differences were observed for help seeking regarding return to work and for difficulty in obtaining help regarding taking care of children and other family members, changes in relationships with family, friends and co-workers, and getting to and from appointments. Unmet needs existed across all domains and were similar in both groups. A larger proportion of rural dwelling respondents experienced unmet needs regarding return to work.

CONCLUSIONS

[implications]: High proportions of cancer survivors experienced concerns following cancer treatment. However, rural dwelling survivors were more challenged in obtaining help for selected concerns. Implications exist for development of community-based support services in rural settings.

Improving Survivors' Quality of Life Post-Treatment: The Perspectives of Rural Australian Cancer Survivors and Their Carers

Simple Summary

Existing programs to support cancer survivors post-treatment tend to be delivered face-to-face, reducing their accessibility to those living in rural and remote locations. Additionally, little is known about the acceptability of urban-developed survivorship care programs among rural cancer survivors who may have unique values and different attitudes towards help-seeking. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of cancer survivors who return to their rural communities upon completion of active treatment, and to identify the challenges these survivors experience in engaging with quality of life-related support services. The findings of this study will inform the design and development of new interventions, or modification of existing interventions, to better meet the preferences and needs of rural survivors. Identifying the specific challenges and intervention preferences of rural cancer survivors will help to ensure they benefit as much as urban survivors, from efforts to improve post-treatment quality of life.

Abstract

The transition from urban centres back to rural and remote communities can be challenging for rural cancer survivors after treatment. This study aimed to (a) provide deeper understanding of the experiences of rural survivors who have completed active cancer treatment and returned to their rural communities, and (b) determine strategies to re-orient existing services or develop new interventions to more appropriately meet rural survivors’ service preferences and needs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 adults (64% female) who lived outside of a metropolitan area and had completed active cancer treatment (n = 13), were the carer for a rural/remote cancer survivor (n = 6), or were both a survivor and carer (n = 3). Thematic analysis was conducted to identify dominant themes in the qualitative data. A range of physical, psychological and practical challenges that impact quality of life among rural survivors post-treatment were found. These challenges appeared to be compounded by a lack of trust in local rural healthcare services and a lack of clear post-treatment pathways to quality of life-enhancing support services. Acceptable strategies to overcome barriers included nurse-led, telephone-based, or face-to-face interventions, initiated and continued by the same service provider, and that included support to manage emotional challenges associated with post-treatment survivorship. The findings will inform the design of interventions to better meet rural cancer survivors’ post-treatment support needs.

The Effect of Rural Residence on Cancer-Related Self-Efficacy With UK Cancer Survivors Following Treatment

PURPOSE

To examine rural and urban differences in cancer-related self-efficacy with UK cancer survivors following treatment.

METHODS

A cross-sectional postal survey with posttreatment cancer survivors in the East Midlands of England. The survey collected data on demographics and cancer-related self-efficacy using the Cancer Survivors Self-Efficacy Scale. Rural-urban residence was determined using Office for National Statistics classifications. Linear Regression models were developed using a Directed Acyclic Graph that determined confounding variables. When the model deviated from normal the outcome variable was transformed using the Box-Cox transformation.

FINDINGS

Of those surveyed, 227 responded, of whom 58% were female and 45% lived in a rural area. A linear regression model showed a significant increase in cancer-related self-efficacy in cancer survivors living in rural areas compared to urban residents (0.76, 95% CI: 0.25-1.27), although the residual plot deviated from a normal distribution. A model of the effect of rural living on a Box-Cox transformed outcome variable confirmed an increased cancer-related self-efficacy score in rural regions (9.06, 95% CI: 2.97-15.14). Rural living remained significant (7.98, 95% CI: 1.78-14.19) after adjustment for the respondents' income. Similarly adjusting for deprivation led to a significant increase in cancer-related self-efficacy in rural regions (8.64, 95% CI: 2.48-14.79).

CONCLUSION

This study has important implications when considering the impact of location of residence on cancer-related self-efficacy in cancer survivorship. The role of deprivation had some impact for sample respondents in both the urban and rural environment and merits further analysis.