RESUMO
PURPOSE: While limited resources can make high-quality, comprehensive, coordinated cancer care provision challenging in rural settings, rural cancer patients often rely on local hospitals for care. To develop resources and strategies to support high-quality local cancer care, it is critical to understand the current experiences of rural cancer care physicians, including perceived strengths and challenges of providing cancer care in rural areas. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 cancer providers associated with all 12 non-metropolitan/rural Iowa hospitals that diagnose or treat >100 cancer patients annually. Iterative thematic analysis was conducted to develop domains. FINDINGS: Participants identified geographic proximity and sense of community as strengths of local care. They described decision-making processes and challenges related to referring patients to larger centers for complex procedures, including a lack of dedicated navigators to facilitate and track transfers between institutions and occasional lack of respect from academic physicians. Participants reported a desire for strengthening collaborations with larger urban/academic cancer centers, including access to educational opportunities, shared resources and strategies to collect and monitor data on quality, and clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Rural cancer care providers are dedicated to providing high-quality care close to home for their patients and would welcome opportunities to increase collaboration with larger centers to improve coordination and comprehensiveness of care, collect and monitor data on quality of care, and access continuing education opportunities. Further research is needed to develop implementation approaches that will extend resources, services, and expertise to rural providers to facilitate high-quality cancer care for all cancer patients.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) establishes standards to support multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care. CoC-accredited cancer programs diagnose and/or treat 73% of patients in the United States. However, rural patients may experience diminished access to CoC-accredited cancer programs. Our study evaluated distance to hospitals by CoC accreditation status, rurality, and Census Division. METHODS: All US hospitals were identified from public-use Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, then merged with CoC-accreditation data. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) were used to categorize counties as metro (RUCC 1-3), large rural (RUCC 4-6), or small rural (RUCC 7-9). Distance from each county centroid to the nearest CoC and non-CoC hospital was calculated using the Great Circle Distance method in ArcGIS. FINDINGS: Of 1,382 CoC-accredited hospitals, 89% were in metro counties. Small rural counties contained a total of 30 CoC and 794 non-CoC hospitals. CoC hospitals were located 4.0, 10.1, and 11.5 times farther away than non-CoC hospitals for residents of metro, large rural, and small rural counties, respectively, while the average distance to non-CoC hospitals was similar across groups (9.4-13.6 miles). Distance to CoC-accredited facilities was greatest west of the Mississippi River, in particular the Mountain Division (99.2 miles). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar proximity to non-CoC hospitals across groups, CoC hospitals are located farther from large and small rural counties than metro counties, suggesting rural patients have diminished access to multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care afforded by CoC-accredited hospitals. Addressing distance-based access barriers to high-quality, comprehensive cancer treatment in rural US communities will require a multisectoral approach.