ArticleCancer medicine2025
Rural-Urban Disparities in Cancer Care-Analyzing Routinely Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes. A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the Exercise for Cancer to Enhance Living Well (EXCEL) Study: A Canada-Wide Rural-Urban Analysis.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRural-urban disparities in cancer care are well documented. However, research on rural-urban disparities regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is still developing. This study analyzed rural-urban disparities in patients with cancer with respect to anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, and physical function.
methodsThis study was conducted at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute. We integrated data from electronic health records, Cancer Registry, and PRO questionnaires. We assessed the association between rurality status (rural vs. urban) in patients with cancer and PRO scores using multiple linear regression models and t-tests.
resultsThe cohort included 7271 patients. The mean age was 59.1 years at cancer diagnosis and 48.2% (n = 3505) were female. Across all cancer types, significant differences (Rural vs. Urban) were found for fatigue (53.6 vs. 54.1; p < 0.05) and physical function (45.5 vs. 45.1; p < 0.05). With respect to specific cancer types, there were differences in patients with oral cavity and pharynx cancer for depression (47.9 vs. 50.6; p < 0.01), fatigue (51.6 vs. 54.8; p < 0.05), pain interference (52.8 vs. 55.4; p < 0.05), and physical function (48.0 vs. 44.6; p < 0.01), colorectal cancer for fatigue (56.8 vs. 54.7; p < 0.05), pain interference (56.0 vs. 53.7; p < 0.05), and physical function (42.2 vs. 44.4; p < 0.05), uterus cancer for depression (47.5 vs. 50.5; p < 0.05) and fatigue (51.6 vs. 54.7; p < 0.05), and lung cancer for physical function (37.6 vs. 39.3; p < 0.05).
conclusionsAcross all cancer types, as well as specific cancers, this study found mostly limited rural-urban differences regarding PROs. Except for colorectal and lung/bronchus cancer, patients living in rural areas reported similar or better PRO scores for all cancer types. Results support the hypothesis that improving access can help to level rural-urban disparities regarding cancer care outcomes, because all patients were treated in the same comprehensive cancer center, had similar access to care, and had similar PRO scores.
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.