ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
"You lose a day for every appointment": A qualitative study of how rural versus urban residence shapes cancer care experiences in Northeast Scotland.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeQuantitative studies show that rural-dwelling cancer patients experience poorer survival than urban residents, but the mechanisms remain unclear. This study explored how rural versus urban residence shaped cancer care experiences among patients interviewed after primary treatment in Northeast Scotland, including treatment access, follow-up, recovery, and ongoing engagement with services.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with adults diagnosed within the previous 6-12 months, post-primary treatment, and attending oncology follow-up at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Topic guides were informed by a socioecological model of rural cancer disadvantage. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised, and analysed using the Framework Method. Sampling was purposive for geography, age, and sex. Ethical approval was granted by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (REC 19/NS/0032).
resultsTwenty participants (mean age 67; 13 men, 7 women; 9 rural, 11 urban) described experiences of colorectal (n = 12), prostate (n = 3), and other cancers (n = 5). Four themes were identified: (1) impact of distance and travel time-travel amplified fatigue, costs, and uncertainty; (2) access, trust, and communication-variable GP access but high trust in the cancer centre; (3) physical and social infrastructure-benefits of improved roads, direct bus routes, and third-sector support; (4) pros and cons of rural life-rural lifestyle benefits often offset travel burdens. Men tended to rely mainly on partners, while women reported broader networks. Cancer type and age intersected with geography to shape burdens such as continence-related travel constraints after prostate surgery.
conclusionsGeography influenced the burden of accessing rather than the quality of care. Person-centred scheduling, local delivery of peripheral care, transport-aware planning, and collaboration with third-sector providers could mitigate inequities.
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.