Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40104463›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Rural Perceptions of Tumor Treating Fields for Glioblastoma: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Mohamman S Alhameed, Timothy J Lucas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Mohamman S AlhameedDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Timothy J LucasDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Buwai Hospital, Beijing, CHN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive primary brain tumor with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. Tumor treating fields (TTFs) are described as non-invasive because they do not require surgery and have practical demands - such as continuous wear for 23 hours per day, head shaving, and managing heavy batteries - that limit daily activities and may affect therapy acceptance. These challenges complicate its classification as truly non-invasive. Awareness and adoption of TTF in rural communities remain poorly understood due to disparities in healthcare access and education. This study investigates rural perceptions of TTF, focusing on awareness, barriers, and willingness to adopt the treatment, aiming to inform educational initiatives and improve access to innovative therapies in underserved areas. Materials and methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among rural Michigan residents living over 50 miles from comprehensive cancer centers, such as the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center and Karmanos Cancer Institute. Participants aged 18 or older who resided in rural Michigan and identified as patients, caregivers, or community members interested in GBM care were included, while those with professional oncology experience were excluded to avoid bias. Data on awareness, perceived barriers (e.g., cost, access), and willingness to adopt TTF were collected through anonymous surveys. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis test, while qualitative responses underwent thematic coding. Ethics approval was not required, and informed consent was implied upon survey completion. Results The survey assessed awareness, perceived barriers, and willingness to adopt TTF among rural Michigan residents residing over 50 miles from comprehensive cancer centers. Awareness was measured using a 5-point Likert Scale and categorized into binary groups of "aware" and "unaware" for analysis. Barriers such as high cost (78 of 120; 65%), limited access to care (66 of 120; 55%), and lack of understanding (60 of 120; 50%) were identified. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences in awareness (p = 0.024) and willingness to adopt TTF (p = 0.012) based on education level, but no significant differences by age (p = 0.413) or gender (p = 0.521). These findings underscore the need for targeted educational interventions and policy measures to improve equitable access to advanced neuro-oncology therapies in underserved communities. Conclusions Rural communities face significant challenges in accessing and understanding advanced treatments like TTF for GBM, driven by financial, educational, and geographic barriers. Targeted educational efforts, improved access to care, and supportive interventions are critical for addressing these disparities. Engaging healthcare providers to foster trust and disseminate information could play a pivotal role in bridging the gap. This study underscores the importance of tailored educational initiatives, policy-driven solutions, and healthcare provider engagement to improve equitable access to innovative neuro-oncology therapies. Addressing these barriers is vital to reducing healthcare disparities and enhancing outcomes for underserved populations.

Indexed as

cost barrierseducational interventionsglioblastomahealthcare accessibilityhealth literacyneuro-oncologypatient awarenesspublic healthrural health disparitiestumor treating fields

Identifiers

PMID40104463
PMCPMC11914854

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.