Suppr超能文献

城乡癌症治疗临床试验讨论的差异。

Rural-urban differences in discussions of cancer treatment clinical trials.

机构信息

Department of Health Behavior, University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Nov;85(2):e69-74. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.036. Epub 2011 Mar 31.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Compare the characteristics of rural and urban callers to NCI's Cancer Information Service (CIS), and explore the association of geographic location and discussion of cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

Using CIS call data from 2006 to 2008, we assigned a rural or urban designation to caller ZIP codes using Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes. Calls which discussed clinical trials were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The CIS received 227,579 calls from 2006 to 2008 where geographic location could be determined. Overall, 10.3% of calls included a discussion of clinical trials; there were significantly more discussions among urban dwellers than rural individuals (10.5% versus 9.4%, respectively). Multivariate regression analyses supported the univariate findings. In addition, compared to other callers, patients (OR 5.58 [95% CI: 4.88, 6.39]) and family and friends (6.26 [5.48, 71.5]) were significantly more likely to discuss clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Urban callers were more likely than their rural counterparts to discuss cancer treatment trials, placing individuals living in rural areas at a disadvantage in learning about and communicating with their providers about possible participation in clinical trials.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Through its multiple access points, the CIS can serve as an important source of clinical trials information for rural cancer patients, family members, and providers.

摘要

目的

比较国家癌症研究所癌症信息服务(CIS)农村和城市来电者的特征,并探讨地理位置与癌症临床试验讨论之间的关联。

方法

使用 2006 年至 2008 年 CIS 的呼叫数据,我们使用农村-城市通勤区代码为来电者邮政编码分配农村或城市指定。使用单变量和多变量分析分析讨论临床试验的呼叫。

结果

CIS 在 2006 年至 2008 年期间收到了 227,579 个可确定地理位置的电话。总体而言,10.3%的电话讨论了临床试验;城市居民的讨论明显多于农村居民(分别为 10.5%和 9.4%)。多变量回归分析支持单变量发现。此外,与其他来电者相比,患者(OR 5.58 [95% CI:4.88, 6.39])和家人及朋友(6.26 [5.48, 71.5])更有可能讨论临床试验。

结论

城市来电者比农村来电者更有可能讨论癌症治疗试验,使生活在农村地区的个人在了解和与提供者沟通潜在参与临床试验方面处于不利地位。

实践意义

通过其多个接入点,CIS 可以成为农村癌症患者、家庭成员和提供者获取临床试验信息的重要来源。

相似文献

1
Rural-urban differences in discussions of cancer treatment clinical trials.城乡癌症治疗临床试验讨论的差异。
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Nov;85(2):e69-74. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.036. Epub 2011 Mar 31.
9
Assessing geographic disparities in mental health research participation.评估心理健康研究参与中的地理差异。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2023 Aug;131:107244. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2023.107244. Epub 2023 May 29.

引用本文的文献

6
Priorities for Rural Lymphoma Survivors: A Qualitative Study.农村淋巴瘤幸存者的优先事项:一项定性研究。
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Jan;20(1):47-52.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.599. Epub 2019 Oct 19.

本文引用的文献

4
8
Cancer information needs in rural areas.农村地区的癌症信息需求。
J Health Commun. 2005 Apr-May;10(3):199-208. doi: 10.1080/10810730590934217.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验