Defining rurality: an evaluation of rural definitions and the impact on survival estimates.

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer living in rural areas have inferior cancer outcomes; however, studies examining this association use varying definitions of "rural," complicating comparisons and limiting the utility of the results for policy makers and future researchers.

METHODS

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data (2000-2016) were used to assess risk of cancer mortality and mortality from any cause across 4 definitions of rurality: Urban Influence codes (UIC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Rural-Urban continuum codes (RUCC), and Index of Relative Rurality. Binary (urban vs rural) and ternary (urban, micropolitan, rural) definitions were evaluated. Multivariable parametric survival models estimated hazards of mortality overall and among 3 cancer groupings: screening related, obesity related, and tobacco related. Definition agreement was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 3 788 273 patients with an incident cancer representing 605 counties were identified. There was little discordance between binary definitions of rural vs urban and moderate agreement at the 3 levels. Adjusted models using binary definitions revealed 15% to 17% greater hazard of cancer mortality in rural compared with urban. At the 3 levels when comparing rural with metropolitan, RUCC and NCHS saw similarly increased hazard ratios; however, Index of Relative Rurality did not. Screening-related cancers saw the highest hazards of mortality and the largest divergence between definitions. Obesity-related and tobacco-related cancers saw similarly increased hazards of mortality at the binary and ternary levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Hazard of death is similar across binary definitions; however, this differed when categorized as ternary or continuous, especially among screening-related cancers. Results suggest that study purpose should direct choice of definitions and categorization.