Urban–rural differences in cancer mortality: Operationalizing rurality

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Elizabeth S. Davis MPH, Jeffrey A. Franks MSPH, Smita Bhatia MD, MPH, Kelly M. Kenzik PhD, MS
{"title":"Urban–rural differences in cancer mortality: Operationalizing rurality","authors":"Elizabeth S. Davis MPH,&nbsp;Jeffrey A. Franks MSPH,&nbsp;Smita Bhatia MD, MPH,&nbsp;Kelly M. Kenzik PhD, MS","doi":"10.1111/jrh.12792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess urban–rural differences in cancer mortality across definitions of rurality as (1) established binary cut-points, (2) data-driven binary cut-points, and (3) continuous.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data between 2000 and 2016 to identify incident adult screening-related cancers. Analyses were based on one testing and four validation cohorts (all <i>n</i> = 26,587). Urban–rural status was defined by Rural–Urban Continuum Codes, National Center for Health Statistics codes, and the Index of Relative Rurality. Each was modeled using established binary cut-points, data-driven cut-points, and as continuous. The primary outcome was 5-year cancer-specific mortality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Compared to established cut-points, data-driven cut-points classified more patients as rural, resulted in larger White populations in rural areas, and yielded 7%–14% lower estimates of urban–rural differences in cancer mortality. Further, hazard of cancer mortality increased 4%–67% with continuous rurality measures, revealing important between-unit differences.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Different cut-points introduce variation in urban–rural differences in mortality across definitions, whereas using urban–rural measures as continuous allows rurality to be conceptualized as a continuum, rather than a simple aggregation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy Implications</h3>\n \n <p>Findings provide alternative cut-points for multiple measures of rurality and support the consideration of utilizing continuous measures of rurality in order to guide future research and policymakers.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"40 2","pages":"268-271"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.12792","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To assess urban–rural differences in cancer mortality across definitions of rurality as (1) established binary cut-points, (2) data-driven binary cut-points, and (3) continuous.

Methods

We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data between 2000 and 2016 to identify incident adult screening-related cancers. Analyses were based on one testing and four validation cohorts (all n = 26,587). Urban–rural status was defined by Rural–Urban Continuum Codes, National Center for Health Statistics codes, and the Index of Relative Rurality. Each was modeled using established binary cut-points, data-driven cut-points, and as continuous. The primary outcome was 5-year cancer-specific mortality.

Results

Compared to established cut-points, data-driven cut-points classified more patients as rural, resulted in larger White populations in rural areas, and yielded 7%–14% lower estimates of urban–rural differences in cancer mortality. Further, hazard of cancer mortality increased 4%–67% with continuous rurality measures, revealing important between-unit differences.

Conclusions

Different cut-points introduce variation in urban–rural differences in mortality across definitions, whereas using urban–rural measures as continuous allows rurality to be conceptualized as a continuum, rather than a simple aggregation.

Policy Implications

Findings provide alternative cut-points for multiple measures of rurality and support the consideration of utilizing continuous measures of rurality in order to guide future research and policymakers.

癌症死亡率的城乡差异:农村的可操作性。
目的评估城乡癌症死亡率的差异,包括(1)既定的二元切点;(2)数据驱动的二元切点;以及(3)连续切点:我们使用 2000 年至 2016 年间的监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据来识别与筛查相关的成人癌症事件。分析基于一个测试队列和四个验证队列(均为 26,587 人)。城乡状况由农村-城市连续代码、国家卫生统计中心代码和相对乡村指数定义。每种情况都使用既定的二元切点、数据驱动切点或连续切点进行建模。主要结果是 5 年癌症特异性死亡率:结果:与既定切点相比,数据驱动切点将更多患者归类为农村患者,导致农村地区白人人口增加,并将癌症死亡率的城乡差异估计值降低了 7%-14%。此外,采用连续的农村死亡率测量方法,癌症死亡率的危险性增加了4%-67%,揭示了单位之间的重要差异:结论:不同的切点会导致不同定义的死亡率城乡差异的变化,而使用连续的城乡衡量标准则可以将城乡差异概念化为一个连续体,而不是一个简单的集合体:研究结果为衡量农村地区的多种方法提供了可供选择的切点,并支持考虑使用连续的农村地区衡量方法,以指导未来的研究和政策制定者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信