Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36826083›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2023

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

David Nelson, Ian McGonagle, Christine Jackson, Trish Tsuro, Emily Scott, Mark Gussy, Ros Kane

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review on the qualitative experiences of people living with lung cancer in rural areas.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Cancer survivorship in urban people living with cancer following primary treatment: A secondary analysis of qualitative interview data.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

David NelsonLincoln International Institute for Rural Health, College of Social Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2173-683X
Ian McGonagleSchool of Health and Social Care, College of Social Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.
Christine JacksonSchool of Health and Social Care, College of Social Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.
Trish TsuroUnited Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Research and Innovation Department, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston PE21 9QS, UK.
Emily ScottLincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Peter Hodgkinson Centre, Lincoln County Hospital, Lincoln LN2 5UA, UK.
Mark GussyLincoln International Institute for Rural Health, College of Social Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5010-6407
Ros KaneSchool of Health and Social Care, College of Social Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6926-2530
University of Lincoln · GBLa Trobe University · AULincoln County Hospital · GBMacmillan Cancer Support · GBPilgrim Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

methodsA 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

resultsIn 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 (

conclusionsThis 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.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorNeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PromotionHumansLife StyleRural Populationcancer survivorshiphealth behaviourshealth promotionliving with canceroncologyrural healthrural–urbanUnited Kingdomurban health

Identifiers

PMID36826083
PMCPMC9955107
OpenAlexW4318052513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.