ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2024
Contribution of County Characteristics to Disparities in Rural Mortality After Cancer Diagnosis.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rural-urban disparities in cardiovascular and other competing risk of death among cancer patients.Journal of advanced research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRural disparities in cancer outcomes have been widely evaluated, but limited evidence is available to describe what characteristics of rural environments contribute to the increased risk of poor outcomes. Therefore, this manuscript sought to assess the mediating effects of county characteristics on the relationship between urban/rural status and mortality among patients with cancer, characterize county profiles, and determine at-risk county profiles alongside rural settings.
methodsPatients diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2016 were assessed using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data linked to the 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Codes and 2010 County Health Rankings. There were 757,655 patients representing 596 counties (of 3,143 in the U.S.) and 12 states. Mediation analyses, conducted in 2023, estimated the direct contribution of rurality to 5-year all-cause survival and the contribution of the rural effect indirectly through County Health Ranking domains. Latent class analysis and survival models identified county groupings and estimated the hazard of mortality associated with class membership.
resultsRankings for premature death, clinical care, and physical environment resulted in rural patients having 17.9%-20.2% less survival time than urban patients. Of this, 4.1%-12.6% of the total excess risk was mediated by these characteristics. Patients living in rural and high-risk county classes saw higher all-cause mortality than those in urban lower-risk counties (hazard ratio=1.04, 95% CI=1.01, 1.08 and 1.07, 95% CI=1.03, 1.11).
conclusionsCounties with poorer health rankings had increased mortality risks regardless of rurality; however, the poor rankings, notably health behaviors and social and economic factors, elevated the risk for rural counties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.