Forecasting Rural and Urban Otolaryngologists, Radiation Oncologists, and Oropharyngeal Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To forecast oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) incidence with otolaryngologist and radiation oncologist numbers per population by rural and urban counties through 2030. METHODS: Incident OPC cases were abstracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 19 database, and otolaryngologists and radiation oncologists from the Area Health Resources File by county from 2000 to 2018. Variables were analyzed by metropolitan counties with over 1,000,000 people (large metros), rural counties adjacent to a metro (rural adjacent), and rural counties not adjacent to a metro (rural not adjacent). Data were forecasted via an unobserved components model with regression slope comparisons. RESULTS: Per 100,000 population, forecasted OPC incidence increased from 2000 to 2030 (large metro: 3.6 to 10.6 cases; rural adjacent: 4.2 to 11.9; rural not adjacent: 4.3 to 10.1). Otolaryngologists remained stable for large metros (2.9 to 2.9) but declined in rural adjacent (0.7 to 0.2) and rural not adjacent (0.8 to 0.7). Radiation oncologists increased from 1.0 to 1.3 in large metros, while rural adjacent remained similar (0.2 to 0.2) and rural not adjacent increased (0.2 to 0.6). Compared to large metros, regression slope comparisons indicated similar forecasted OPC incidence for rural not adjacent (p = 0.58), but greater for rural adjacent (p < 0.001, r = 0.96). Otolaryngologists declined for rural regions (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, r = -0.56, and r = -0.58 for rural adjacent and not adjacent, respectively). Radiation oncologists declined in rural adjacent (p < 0.001, r = -0.61), while increasing at a lesser rate for rural not adjacent (p = 0.002, r = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Rural OPC incidence disparities will grow while the relevant, rural health care workforce declines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:136-142, 2024.

Rural-urban otolaryngologic observational workforce analysis: The state of Nebraska.

Objective: To analyze the rural-urban access to otolaryngology (OHNS) care within the state of Nebraska. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Counties in Nebraska were categorized into rural versus urban status based upon the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics urban-rural classification scheme with I indicating most urban and VI indicating most rural. The information on otolaryngologists was gathered utilizing the Health Professions Tracking System. Otolaryngologists were categorized based on the county of their primary and outreach clinic location(s). Travel burden was estimated using census tract centroid distance to the nearest clinic location, aggregated to county using weighted population means to determine the average county distance to the nearest otolaryngologist. Results: Nebraska is a state with a population of 1.8 million people unequally distributed across 76,824 square miles, with rural counties covering 2/3 of the land area. Nebraska has 78 primary OHNS clinics and 70 outreach OHNS clinics distributed across 93 counties. More than half (54.8%) of the counties in Nebraska lacked any OHNS clinic. Overall, a statistically significant difference was found when comparing mean primary OHNS per 100,000 population and mean miles to a primary OHNS clinic with Level III counties being 5.17 linear miles from primary OHNS compared to Level V counties being 29.94 linear miles. Conclusion: Overall, a clear discrepancy between rural and urban primary OHNS clinics in Nebraska can be seen visually and statistically with rural Nebraskans having to travel at least 5.5 times farther to primary OHNS clinics when compared to urban Nebraskans.

Cross-sectional survey study of primary care clinics on evidence-based colorectal cancer screening intervention use.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine differences between urban and rural primary care clinics in the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods and evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of primary care clinics in Nebraska. Surveys in paper form were sent out and followed up with telephone interviews to nonrespondents. Of the 375 facilities, 263 (70.1%) responded to the survey. FINDINGS: Over 30% of urban clinics indicated that 80% or more of their patients were meeting the CRC guidelines compared to 18.3% of rural clinics (P = .03). Rural clinics were more likely than urban clinics to prefer the use of colonoscopy alone or in combination with stool tests (P = .02). The most common interventions for CRC screening included one-on-one patient education and use of computer-based pop-ups to remind providers. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we found some important differences between rural and urban primary care clinics in the implementation of CRC screening. Given that there is evidence for differences in preference for CRC screening methods (colonoscopy vs stool-based tests) between rural and urban community members, it is important to assess the effectiveness of different types of CRC screening interventions by comparing rural and urban primary care clinic patient populations.