Rural disparities in surgical care from gynecologic oncologists among Midwestern ovarian cancer patients

Multi-Institutional Study of Referral Patterns for Gynecologic Oncology Consultation

PURPOSE

Evaluation by a gynecologic oncologist (GO) is associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients with gynecologic cancers, yet little is known about health care factors that influence patients' referrals to GO.

METHODS

Medical records of 50 consecutive new patients seen in GO clinics at each of six referral centers across the United States were reviewed. Patient and disease characteristics were collected along with referral indication, evaluation and referral dates, diagnostic procedures, provider specialties, and zone improvement plan (ZIP) code of up to three referring providers per patient. The primary outcome was interval between first evaluation and referral. Univariate associations were evaluated with Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and multivariable associations with negative binomial regression models. Secondary outcome was prolonged time to GO referral, defined as greater than the 75th percentile. Logistic regression was used for multivariable modeling.

RESULTS

Three hundred patient records were analyzed. The median time from first health care encounter to referral was 15 days (IQR, 5-43). The mean distance from residence to GO was 39.8 miles (standard deviation, 53.8). Seventy-one percent of GO referrals were initiated by obstetrician-gynecologists, 9% by family physicians, and 6% internists. Presentation-to-referral interval was 76% shorter for patients evaluated by an emergency medicine clinician (exp(Beta), 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P < .001). Public insurance was associated with 1.47 times longer time to referral compared with private insurance (exp(Beta), 1.47; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.04; P = .001). Residents of nonmetropolitan ZIP codes were less likely to have prolonged time to referral (odds ratio [OR], 0.288; P = .017). Distance from residence to GO (per 10 miles) increased the likelihood of prolonged time to referral (OR, 1.10; P = .010).

CONCLUSION

Interventions are needed to improve recognition and referral of patients for gynecologic oncology evaluation. Community outreach and engagement with obstetrician-gynecologists should be prioritized to improve times to referral.

Rural-urban disparities in psychosocial functioning in epithelial ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Although rural residence has been related to health disparities in cancer patients, little is known about how rural residence impacts mental health and quality of life (QOL) in ovarian cancer patients over time. This prospective longitudinal study investigated mental health and QOL of ovarian cancer patients in the first-year post-diagnosis.

METHOD

Women with suspected ovarian cancer completed psychosocial surveys pre-surgery, at 6 months and one-year; clinical data were obtained from medical records. Histologically confirmed high grade epithelial ovarian cancer patients were eligible. Rural/urban residence was categorized from patient counties using the USDA Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Linear mixed effects models examined differences in psychosocial measures over time, adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

Although disparities were not observed at study entry for any psychosocial variable (all p-values >0.22), urban patients showed greater improvement in total distress over the year following diagnosis than rural patients (p = 0.025) and were significantly less distressed at one year (p = 0.03). Urban patients had a more consistent QOL improvement than their rural counterparts (p = 0.006). There were no differences in the course of depressive symptoms over the year (p = 0.17). Social support of urban patients at 12 months was significantly higher than that of rural patients (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Rural patients reported less improvement in psychological functioning in the year following diagnosis than their urban counterparts. Clinicians should be aware of rurality as a potential risk factor for ongoing distress. Future studies should examine causes of these health disparities and potential long-term inequities and develop interventions to address these issues.

The Evaluation of Payment for Obstetric and Gynecology Services: From ACOG

PURPOSE

To perform an environmental scan of the current status of reimbursement for obstetric and gynecology services and identify problematic issues and opportunities for change. The areas that were evaluated include the American Medical Association (AMA) relative value unit assignment process, payer rates (where available), and trends in employment and salary determination for obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns).

METHODS

This report was developed by members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) Committee on Health Economics and Coding using public-facing payment data from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and state Medicaid programs, as well as published research and commentary on payment for physicians, maternal health, and gynecologic surgery. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used to describe typical patient characteristics, and practice survey reports from the AMA were analyzed. Finally, an anonymous online survey was distributed to 27,854 members of ACOG in March 2022, with a response rate of 10.8% (3,018 members) and a CI of ±1.7%.

FINDINGS

The evaluation found that payment for ob-gyns is heavily influenced by the values and rates set by third-party payers, a patient case-mix that includes a higher-than-average number of patients with Medicaid insurance, and the increase of employed physicians reliant on salary contracts that include productivity requirements and bonuses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee identified action items, including payment reform for obstetric services; advocating for gynecologic surgery time as a priority for hospital administration; developing resources to assist employed physicians with payment, practice, and business management; developing a business and coding curriculum for students and early-career physicians; and continued advocacy with private and public policymakers who influence physician payment.

Disparities in Gynecologic Cancers

ABSTRACT

Gynecologic cancer disparities have different trends by cancer type and by sociodemographic/economic factors. We highlight disparities in the United States arising due to poor delivery of cancer care across the continuum from primary prevention, detection, and diagnosis through treatment and identify opportunities to eliminate/reduce disparities to achieve cancer health equity. Our review documents the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancer outcomes, with Black patients experiencing the worst outcomes, and notes literature investigating social determinants of health, particularly access to care. Although timely delivery of screening and diagnostic evaluation is of paramount importance for cervical cancer, efforts for ovarian and uterine cancer need to focus on timely recognition of symptoms, diagnostic evaluation, and delivery of guideline-concordant cancer treatment, including tumor biomarker and somatic/germline genetic testing.

Availability of cancer care services and the organization of care delivery at critical access hospitals

INTRODUCTION

Critical access hospitals (CAHs) provide an opportunity to meet the needs of individuals with cancer in rural areas. Two common innovative care delivery methods include the use of traveling oncologists and teleoncology. It is important to understand the availability and organization of cancer care services in CAHs due to the growing population with cancer and expected declines in oncology workforce in rural areas.

METHODS

Stratified random sampling was used to generate a sample of 50 CAHs from each of the four U.S. Census Bureau-designated regions resulting in a total sample of 200 facilities. Analyses were conducted from 135 CAH respondents to understand the availability of cancer care services and organization of cancer care across CAHs.

RESULTS

Almost all CAHs (95%) provided at least one cancer screening or diagnostic service. Forty-six percent of CAHs reported providing at least one component of cancer treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery) at their facility. CAHs that offered cancer treatment reported a wide range of health care staff involvement, including 34% of respondents reporting involvement of a local oncologist, 38% reporting involvement of a visiting oncologist, and 28% reporting involvement of a non-local oncologist using telemedicine.

CONCLUSION

Growing disparities within rural areas emphasize the importance of ensuring access to timely screening and guideline-recommended treatment for cancer in rural communities. These data demonstrated that CAHs are addressing the growing need through a variety of approaches including the use of innovative models that utilize non-local providers and telemedicine to expand access to crucial services for rural residents with cancer.

Health Disparities in Ovarian Cancer: Report From the Ovarian Cancer Evidence Review Conference

Health disparity, defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as "preventable differences in the burden of disease, injury, violence, or opportunities to achieve optimal health that are experienced by socially disadvantaged populations," is seen across multiple diseases. We conducted an evidence review of health disparities and inequities and their mitigation strategies related to ovarian cancer as part of a CDC-sponsored project to develop educational materials for clinicians on the prevention and early diagnosis of gynecologic cancers. Our review found profound disparities in outcomes such as survival, treatment, and stage at diagnosis by factors such as race and ethnicity, insurance, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. We found little direct evidence on mitigation strategies. Studies support equivalent response to equivalent treatment between groups, suggesting that adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines can at least partially mitigate some of the differences.

Healthcare Access Domains Mediate Racial Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Treatment Quality in a US Patient Cohort: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer survival disparities have persisted for decades, driven by lack of access to quality treatment. We conducted structural equation modeling (SEM) to define latent variables representing three healthcare access (HCA) domains: affordability, availability, and accessibility, and evaluated the direct and indirect associations between race and ovarian cancer treatment mediated through the HCA domains.

METHODS

Patients with ovarian cancer ages 65 years or older diagnosed between 2008 and 2015 were identified from the SEER-Medicare dataset. Generalized SEM was used to estimate latent variables representing HCA domains by race in relation to two measures of ovarian cancer-treatment quality: gynecologic oncology consultation and receipt of any ovarian cancer surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 8,987 patients with ovarian cancer were included in the analysis; 7% were Black. The affordability [Ω: 0.876; average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.689], availability (Ω: 0.848; AVE = 0.636), and accessibility (Ω: 0.798; AVE = 0.634) latent variables showed high composite reliability in SEM analysis. Black patients had lower affordability and availability, but higher accessibility compared with non-Black patients. In fully adjusted models, there was no direct effect observed between Black race to receipt of surgery [β: -0.044; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.264 to 0.149]; however, there was an inverse total effect (β: -0.243; 95% CI, -0.079 to -0.011) that was driven by HCA affordability (β: -0.025; 95% CI, -0.036 to -0.013), as well as pathways that included availability and consultation with a gynecologist oncologist.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial differences in ovarian cancer treatment appear to be driven by latent variables representing healthcare affordability, availability, and accessibility.

IMPACT

Strategies to mitigate disparities in multiple HCA domains will be transformative in advancing equity in cancer treatment.

Collaborating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program to Increase Receipt of Ovarian Cancer Care from a Gynecologic Oncologist

Background: Treatment by a gynecologic oncologist is an important part of ovarian cancer care; however, implementation strategies are needed to increase care by these specialists. We partnered with National Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs in Iowa, Michigan, and Rhode Island in a demonstration project to deepen the evidence base for promising strategies that would facilitate care for ovarian cancer by gynecologic oncologists. Methods: Five main implementation strategies (increase knowledge/awareness; improve models of care; improve payment structures; increase insurance coverage; enhance workforce) were identified in the literature and used to develop initiatives. Specific activities were chosen by state programs according to feasibility and needs. Results: Activities included: (1) qualitative interviews with patients to determine barriers to receipt of specialized care; (2) development of patient/provider educational materials; (3) creation of patient/provider checklists to facilitate appropriate referrals; (4) expansion of a toll-free patient navigation hotline for ovarian cancer patients; (5) training of the health care workforce. The programs developed resources (educational handouts, toolkits, 2 webinars, 2 podcasts); trained 167 medical and nursing students during 8 Survivors Teaching Students® workshops; and conducted 3 provider education sessions reaching 362 providers in 45 states. Evaluations showed increases in providers' knowledge, awareness, abilities, and intentions to refer ovarian cancer patients to a gynecologic oncologist. Conclusion: The state program resources we discussed are available for other cancer control programs interested in initiating or expanding activities to improve access/referrals to gynecologic oncologists for ovarian cancer care. They serve as a valuable repository for public health professionals seeking to implement similar interventions.

Community access to primary care is an important geographic disparity among ovarian cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery

Objective

Given the importance of understanding neighborhood context and geographic access to care on individual health outcomes, we sought to investigate the association of community primary care (PC) access on postoperative outcomes and survival in ovarian cancer patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of Stage III-IV ovarian cancer patients who underwent surgery at a single academic, tertiary care hospital between 2012 and 2015. PC access was determined using a Health Resources and Services Administration designation. Outcomes included 30-day surgical and medical complications, extended hospital stay, ICU admission, hospital readmission, progression-free and overall survival. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared analyses were used to analyze differences between patients from PC-shortage vs not PC-shortage areas.

Results

Among 217 ovarian cancer patients, 54.4 % lived in PC-shortage areas. They were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance and live in rural areas with higher poverty rates, significantly further from the treating cancer center and its affiliated hospital. Nevertheless, 49.2 % of patients from PC-shortage areas lived in urban communities. Residing in a PC-shortage area was not associated with increased surgical or medical complications, ICU admission, or hospital readmission, but was linked to more frequent prolonged hospitalization (26.3 % vs 14.1 %, p = 0.04). PC-shortage did not impact progression-free or overall survival.

Conclusions

Patients from PC-shortage areas may require longer inpatient perioperative care in order to achieve the same 30-day postoperative outcomes as patients who live in non-PC shortage areas. Community access to PC is a critical factor to better understanding and reducing disparities among ovarian cancer patients.

Understanding the Experience of Canadian Women Living with Ovarian Cancer through the Every Woman StudyTM

The Every Woman StudyTM: Canadian Edition is the most comprehensive study to date exploring patient-reported experiences of ovarian cancer (OC) on a national scale. An online survey conducted in Fall 2020 included individuals diagnosed with OC in Canada, reporting responses from 557 women from 11 Canadian provinces/territories. Median age at diagnosis was 54 (11−80), 61% were diagnosed between 2016−2020, 59% were stage III/IV and all subtypes of OC were represented. Overall, 23% had a family history of OC, 75% had genetic testing and 19% reported having a BRCA1/2 mutation. Most (87%) had symptoms prior to diagnosis. A timely diagnosis of OC (≤3 months from first presentation with symptoms) was predicted by age (>50) or abdominal pain/persistent bloating as the primary symptom. Predictors of an acute diagnosis (<1 month) included region, ER/urgent care doctor as first healthcare provider or stage III/IV disease. Regional differences in genetic testing, treatments and clinical trial participation were also noted. Respondents cited substantial physical, emotional, practical and financial impacts of an OC diagnosis. Our national survey has revealed differences in the pathway to diagnosis and post-diagnostic care among Canadian women with OC, with region, initial healthcare provider, specific symptoms and age playing key roles. We have identified many opportunities to improve both clinical and supportive care of OC patients across the country.

The Impact of Commission on Cancer Accreditation Status, Hospital Rurality and Hospital Size on Quality Measure Performance Rates

BACKGROUND

Rural cancer patients receive lower-quality care and experience worse outcomes than urban patients. Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation requires hospitals to monitor performance on evidence-based quality measuresPlease confirm the list of authors is correc, but the impact of accreditation is not clear due to lack of data from non-accredited facilities and confounding between patient rurality and hospital accreditation, rurality, and size.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study assessed associations between rurality, accreditation, size, and performance rates for four CoC quality measures (breast radiation, breast chemotherapy, colon chemotherapy, colon nodal yield). Iowa Cancer Registry data were queried to identify all eligible patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017. Cases were assigned to the surgery hospital to calculate performance rates. Univariate and multivariate regression models were fitted to identify patient- and hospital-level predictors and assess trends.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 10,381 patients; 46% were rural. Compared with urban patients, rural patients more often received treatment at small, rural, and non-accredited facilities (p < 0.001 for all). Rural hospitals had fewer beds and were far less likely to be CoC-accredited than urban hospitals (p < 0.001 for all). On multivariate analysis, CoC accreditation was the strongest, independent predictor of higher hospital performance for all quality measures evaluated (p < 0.05 in each model). Performance rates significantly improved over time only for the colon nodal yield quality measure, and only in urban hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

CoC accreditation requires monitoring and evaluating performance on quality measures, which likely contributes to better performance on these measures. Efforts to support rural hospital accreditation may improve existing disparities in rural cancer treatment and outcomes.

Disparity of ovarian cancer survival between urban and rural settings

Objective

To determine if there is a difference in overall survival of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer in rural, urban, and metropolitan settings in the United States.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study using 2004–2016 National Cancer Database (NCDB) data including high and low grade, stage I-IV disease. Bivariate analyses used Student’s t-test for continuous variables and χ² test for dichotomous variables. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated survival of patients based on location of residence, and univariate analyses using Cox proportional HR assessed survival based on baseline characteristics. Multivariate analysis was performed to account for significant covariates. Propensity score matching was used to validate the multivariate survival model. For all tests, p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 111 627 patients were included with a mean age of 62.5 years for metroolitan (range 18–90), 64.0 years for rural (range 19–90) and 63.2 years for urban areas (range 18–90). Of all patients included, 94 290 were in a metropolitan area (counties >1 million population or 50 000–999 999), 15 386 were in an urban area (population of 10 000–49 999), and 1951 were in a rural area (non-metropolitan/non-core population). Univariate Cox proportional hazards models showed clinically significant differences in survival in patients from metropolitan, urban, and rural areas. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models showed a clinically significant increase in HRs for patients in rural settings (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29). Increasing age and stage, non-insured status, non-white race, and comorbidity were also significant for poorer survival.

Conclusion

Patients with ovarian cancer who live in rural settings with small populations and greater distance to tertiary care centers have poorer survival. These differences hold after controlling for stage, age, and other significant risk factors related to poorer outcomes. To improve clinical outcomes, we need further studies to identify which of these factors are actionable.

Insurance-Mediated Disparities in Gynecologic Oncology Care

Insurance coverage has lagged behind improvements in gynecologic cancer care, with one third of women never seeing a gynecologic oncologist and half experiencing financial toxicity during cancer treatment.

With 102,000 new cases of gynecologic cancer, 30,000 associated deaths annually, and increasing rates of endometrial cancer, gynecologic cancer is a growing problem. Although gynecologic cancer care has advanced significantly in the past decade owing to new therapeutics and specialized training in radical surgery, even insured women face major barriers to accessing and affording quality gynecologic cancer care. This commentary reviews current literature on insurance-mediated disparities in gynecologic cancer and provides education to clinicians on barriers to care. One third of women with a gynecologic cancer never see a gynecologic oncologist. Up to 40% of Medicare Advantage plans lack an in-network gynecologic oncologist, and 33% of private insurance plans do not include an in-network National Cancer Institute-accredited cancer center, limiting access to surgical advances and clinical trials. Women with Medicaid insurance and gynecologic cancer are 25% less likely to receive guideline-concordant care. Among insured women, 50% experience financial toxicity during gynecologic cancer treatment, and costs may be even higher for certain Medicare enrollees. Addressing these insurance-mediated disparities will be important to help our patients fully benefit from the scientific advances in our field and thrive after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis.

Gynecologic oncologist impact on adjuvant chemotherapy care for stage II-IV ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

We aim to evaluate the impact gynecologic oncologists have on ovarian cancer adjuvant chemotherapy care from their role as surgeons recommending adjuvant chemotherapy care and their role as adjuvant chemotherapy providers while considering rural-urban differences.

METHODS

Multivariable adjusted logistic regressions and Cox proportional hazards models were developed using a population-based, retrospective cohort of stage II-IV and unknown stage ovarian cancer patients diagnosed in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri in 2010-2012 whose medical records were abstracted in 2017-2018.

RESULTS

Gynecologic oncologist surgeons (versus other type of surgeon) were associated with increased odds of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-4.33) and having a gynecologic oncologist adjuvant chemotherapy provider (OR 10.0; 95% CI 4.58-21.8). Independent of type of surgeon, rural patients were less likely to have a gynecologic oncologist chemotherapy provider (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.91). Gynecologic oncologist adjuvant chemotherapy providers (versus other providers) were associated with decreased surgery-to-chemotherapy time (rural: 6 days; urban: 8 days) and increased distance to chemotherapy (rural: 22 miles; urban: 11 miles). Rural women (versus urban) traveled 38 miles farther when their chemotherapy provider was a gynecologic oncologist and 27 miles farther when it was not.

CONCLUSION

Gynecologic oncologist surgeons may impact adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Gynecologic oncologists serving as adjuvant chemotherapy providers were associated with some care benefits, such as reduced time from surgery-to-chemotherapy, and some care barriers, such as travel distance. The barriers and benefits of having a gynecologic oncologist involved in adjuvant chemotherapy care, including rural-urban differences, warrant further research in other populations.

Succinct Cancer Clinical Trial Consent Forms in Rural Patients With Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized, Double-Blinded study

Rural patients are often underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. This is a secondary analysis of a study that tested short (2000 word) versus long (6000 word) consent forms with a focus on rurality. Among 240 patients, 89 (37%) were rural. Seventy-one (80%) rural and 117 (77%) nonrural patients signed a consent form of any length (P = .68). Forty-one of 47 (87%) rural patients signed a short consent form; in contrast, 30 of 42 (71%) signed a long form. These trends suggest rural patients are more likely to sign short consent forms. Further study is indicated.

Impact of Surgeon Type and Rurality on Treatment and Survival of Ovarian Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend ovarian cancer patients receive cancer-directed surgery from a gynecologic oncologist surgeon. We aimed to determine if rurality impacts type of surgeon and estimate if the interaction between rurality and type of surgeon impacts cytoreductive surgery, chemotherapy initiation, and survival.

METHODS

Our population-based cohort of Iowan (N=675) ovarian cancer patients included women diagnosed with histologically confirmed stages IB-IV cancer in 2010 to 2016 at the ages of 18 to 89 years old and who received cancer-directed surgery in Iowa. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used.

RESULTS

Rural (vs. urban) patients were less likely to receive surgery from a gynecologic oncologist (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-0.78). Rural patients with a gynecologic oncologist (vs. nongynecologic oncologist) surgeon were more likely to receive cytoreduction (OR: 2.84; 95% CI: 1.31-6.14) and chemotherapy (OR: 4.22; 95% CI: 1.82-9.78). Gynecologic oncologist-provided surgery conferred a 3-year cause-specific survival advantage among rural patients (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.33-0.97) and disadvantage among urban patients (hazard ratio: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.02-3.06) in the model without treatment covariates. Significance dissipated in models with treatment variables.

DISCUSSION

The variation in the gynecologic oncologist survival advantage may be because of treatment, referral, volume, or nongynecologic oncologist surgeons' specialty difference by rurality. This is the first study to investigate the ovarian cancer survival advantage of having a gynecologic oncologist surgeon by rurality.

Rural residence is related to shorter survival in epithelial ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Rural residence has been related to health disparities and greater mortality risk in cancer patients, including gynecologic cancer patients. Lower survival rates for rural cancer survivors have been attributed to limited access to specialized healthcare, including surgery. Here, we examined whether a rural/urban survival gap existed in ovarian cancer patients receiving surgery at tertiary-care facilities, and potential causes for this gap, including educational attainment.

METHODS

Rural and urban patients with high grade invasive ovarian cancer (n = 342) seeking treatment at two midwestern tertiary-care university hospitals were recruited pre-surgery and followed until death or censoring date. Rural/urban residence was categorized using the USDA Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Stratified Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, with clinical site as strata, adjusting for clinical and demographic covariates, were used to examine the effect of rurality on survival.

RESULTS

Despite specialized surgical care, rural cancer survivors showed a higher likelihood of death compared to their urban counterparts, HR = 1.39 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.85) p = 0.026, adjusted for covariates. A rurality by education interaction was observed (p = 0.027), indicating significantly poorer survival in rural vs. urban patients among those with trade school/some college education, adjusted HR = 2.49 (95% CI: 1.44, 4.30), p = 0.001; there was no rurality survival disparity for the other 2 levels of education.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in ovarian cancer survival are impacted by rurality, which is moderated by educational attainment even in patients receiving initial care in tertiary settings. Clinicians should be aware of rurality and education as potential risk factors for adverse outcomes and develop approaches to address these possible risks.