Cancer survivorship in urban people living with cancer following primary treatment: A secondary analysis of qualitative interview data.

PURPOSE: Urban cancer survivors have been shown to have better opportunities for recovery of health and wellbeing than their rural counterparts. Whilst there is a considerable body of evidence that explores urban people with cancers' experiences and outcomes, there is a dearth of research that explicitly explores 'urban cancer survivorship' in its own right. This study aimed to explore cancer survivorship in urban people living with cancer who have completed primary treatment. METHODS: Secondary analysis of in-depth interview data (n = 18) with adults living with cancer who resided in urban parts of the UK. Data were drawn from a broader study on self-management of people living with cancer. An adapted version of Foster and Fenlon's recovery of health and wellbeing in cancer survivorship framework was used to inform the analysis of the data. RESULTS: Recovery of health and wellbeing was impacted by a variety of contributory factors, which had a largely positive impact. Access to amenities, social support, travel, and healthcare factors were opportunities for urban cancer survivors, whilst pollution, traffic and a lack of green spaces acted as challenges for health management. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated how urban residency acted as both a barrier and a facilitator to recovery of health and wellbeing in urban cancer survivors following the completion of primary treatment. Area of residence should be taken into account by health providers and policymakers supporting cancer survivorship and the views of those with lived experiences should be included in informing future practice.

Recovery of Health and Wellbeing in Rural Cancer Survivors Following Primary Treatment: Analysis of UK Qualitative Interview Data.

Purpose: Rural cancer survivors have poorer experiences and health outcomes compared to their urban counterparts. There is limited research on the post-treatment experiences of UK cancer survivors residing in rural areas. This study aimed to provide an understanding of the specific challenges and opportunities faced by rural cancer survivors and to provide insight into how rurality influences experiences post-primary treatment, ultimately to inform service provision. Methods: A secondary analysis of in-depth interview transcripts (n = 16) from a wider study on self-management in cancer survivors was conducted. An adapted version of Foster and Fenlon's recovery of health and wellbeing in cancer survivorship framework informed the data coding. Results: Health and wellbeing were interrupted by a variety of problem incidents, and the subsequent steps to recovery were influenced by pre-existing, personal, environmental, and healthcare factors. A prominent theme was support, both from local communities and family as well as from healthcare professionals, with many survivors feeling that their rural setting had a positive influence on their health and wellbeing. Close relationships with local GPs were seen as fundamental to supporting recovery. Access to healthcare was frequently mentioned as a challenge with an emphasis on lengthy travel times and limited bespoke support in rural areas. Conclusions: This study is novel in that it applied a well-established theoretical framework to a rich qualitative dataset on the lived experiences of rural cancer survivors. Rural residency influenced recovery from cancer both positively and negatively. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Future practitioners and policy makers should consider working with local communities to tailor interventions to the specific characteristics of the rural environment.