Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38864894›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Health-related quality of life in rural cancer survivors compared with their urban counterparts: a systematic review.

S Latham, M J Leach, V M White, K Webber, M Jefford, K Lisy, N Davis, J L Millar, S Evans, J D Emery and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Correlates of physical activity among rural Australian cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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

12 authors.

S LathamDepartment of Oncology, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
M J LeachSchool of Rural Health, Monash University, Bendigo, VIC, Australia.
V M WhiteSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
K WebberDepartment of Oncology, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
M JeffordDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
K LisyDepartment of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
N DavisCancer Survivor, Melbourne, Australia.
J L MillarCentral Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
S EvansVictorian Cancer Registry, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
J D EmeryDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
M IJzermanCentre for Health Policy, Cancer Health Services Research, Melbourne School of Population and Global/Total Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
E RistevskiSchool of Rural Health, Monash University, 15 Sargeant Street, Warragul, VIC, 3820, Australia. Eli.Ristevski@monash.edu.

Funding

Victorian Cancer Agency HSR19001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe conducted a systematic review to describe health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in rural cancer survivors (RCS), and compare HRQOL between RCS and urban cancer survivors (UCS).

methodWe searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO for studies with HRQOL in adult cancer survivors living in rural, regional, remote, and urban areas, who had completed definitive primary cancer treatment, without evidence of residual disease. Where available, we used normative and clinically important values to ascribe meaning to HRQOL data.

findingsFifteen studies (16 papers) were included. Most were from the US (n = 8) and reported on breast cancer survivors (n = 9). Six HRQOL instruments, collecting data across 16 domains, were used. Three instruments were specific to the survivorship phase. Normative and clinical data were available for 12 studies. Compared with normative populations, RCS had clinically worse physical HRQOL (6/12 studies), better social/family (5/7), and functional (3/6) HRQOL, and there were no differences in emotional or/mental HRQOL (9/12). In six studies with rural-urban comparator groups and normative and clinically important data, RCS and UCS had clinically worse physical (3/6 and 2/6, respectively) and better social/family (3/4 and 2/4 studies, respectively) HRQOL than normative populations. Functional HRQOL was better in RCS (2/4 studies) than UCS and normative populations. In 3/6 studies, there were no clinical differences in emotional or/mental HRQOL between RCS, UCS, and normative populations.

conclusionOverall, HRQOL is not clearly better or worse in RCS than UCS. Future research should include different tumor types, rural residents, and survivorship-specific HRQOL instruments.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsQuality of LifeRural PopulationUrban PopulationHumansNeoplasmsCancer survivorsHealth-related quality of lifeRuralUrban

Identifiers

PMID38864894
PMCPMC11168981

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.