Geographic distance to Commission on Cancer-accredited and nonaccredited hospitals in the United States.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Rural Health Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI:10.1111/jrh.12862
Mary C Schroeder, Jason Semprini, Amanda R Kahl, Ingrid M Lizarraga, Sarah A Birken, Madison M Wahlen, Erin C Johnson, Jessica Gorzelitz, Aaron T Seaman, Mary E Charlton
{"title":"Geographic distance to Commission on Cancer-accredited and nonaccredited hospitals in the United States.","authors":"Mary C Schroeder, Jason Semprini, Amanda R Kahl, Ingrid M Lizarraga, Sarah A Birken, Madison M Wahlen, Erin C Johnson, Jessica Gorzelitz, Aaron T Seaman, Mary E Charlton","doi":"10.1111/jrh.12862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Commission on Cancer (CoC) establishes standards to support multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care. CoC-accredited cancer programs diagnose and/or treat 73% of patients in the United States. However, rural patients may experience diminished access to CoC-accredited cancer programs. Our study evaluated distance to hospitals by CoC accreditation status, rurality, and Census Division.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All US hospitals were identified from public-use Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, then merged with CoC-accreditation data. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) were used to categorize counties as metro (RUCC 1-3), large rural (RUCC 4-6), or small rural (RUCC 7-9). Distance from each county centroid to the nearest CoC and non-CoC hospital was calculated using the Great Circle Distance method in ArcGIS.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of 1,382 CoC-accredited hospitals, 89% were in metro counties. Small rural counties contained a total of 30 CoC and 794 non-CoC hospitals. CoC hospitals were located 4.0, 10.1, and 11.5 times farther away than non-CoC hospitals for residents of metro, large rural, and small rural counties, respectively, while the average distance to non-CoC hospitals was similar across groups (9.4-13.6 miles). Distance to CoC-accredited facilities was greatest west of the Mississippi River, in particular the Mountain Division (99.2 miles).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite similar proximity to non-CoC hospitals across groups, CoC hospitals are located farther from large and small rural counties than metro counties, suggesting rural patients have diminished access to multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care afforded by CoC-accredited hospitals. Addressing distance-based access barriers to high-quality, comprehensive cancer treatment in rural US communities will require a multisectoral approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","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://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12862","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

Purpose: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) establishes standards to support multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care. CoC-accredited cancer programs diagnose and/or treat 73% of patients in the United States. However, rural patients may experience diminished access to CoC-accredited cancer programs. Our study evaluated distance to hospitals by CoC accreditation status, rurality, and Census Division.

Methods: All US hospitals were identified from public-use Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, then merged with CoC-accreditation data. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) were used to categorize counties as metro (RUCC 1-3), large rural (RUCC 4-6), or small rural (RUCC 7-9). Distance from each county centroid to the nearest CoC and non-CoC hospital was calculated using the Great Circle Distance method in ArcGIS.

Findings: Of 1,382 CoC-accredited hospitals, 89% were in metro counties. Small rural counties contained a total of 30 CoC and 794 non-CoC hospitals. CoC hospitals were located 4.0, 10.1, and 11.5 times farther away than non-CoC hospitals for residents of metro, large rural, and small rural counties, respectively, while the average distance to non-CoC hospitals was similar across groups (9.4-13.6 miles). Distance to CoC-accredited facilities was greatest west of the Mississippi River, in particular the Mountain Division (99.2 miles).

Conclusions: Despite similar proximity to non-CoC hospitals across groups, CoC hospitals are located farther from large and small rural counties than metro counties, suggesting rural patients have diminished access to multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care afforded by CoC-accredited hospitals. Addressing distance-based access barriers to high-quality, comprehensive cancer treatment in rural US communities will require a multisectoral approach.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与美国癌症委员会认证和未认证医院的地理距离。
目的:癌症委员会(CoC)制定了支持多学科综合癌症治疗的标准。经 CoC 认证的癌症项目可诊断和/或治疗美国 73% 的患者。然而,农村地区的患者可能无法享受到通过 CoC 认证的癌症治疗项目。我们的研究根据CoC认证状态、农村地区和人口普查分区对医院距离进行了评估:方法:从公共使用的国土基础设施基金会级别数据中确定所有美国医院,然后与 CoC 认证数据合并。使用农村-城市连续代码(RUCC)将县划分为大都市(RUCC 1-3)、大型农村(RUCC 4-6)或小型农村(RUCC 7-9)。使用 ArcGIS.Findings 中的 "大圆圈距离法 "计算各县中心点到最近的社区医疗中心和非社区医疗中心医院的距离:在 1,382 家获得 CoC 认证的医院中,89% 位于大城市县。小型农村县共有 30 家 CoC 医院和 794 家非 CoC 医院。对于大城市、大农村和小农村县的居民而言,CoC 医院的距离分别是非 CoC 医院的 4.0、10.1 和 11.5 倍,而各组居民与非 CoC 医院的平均距离相似(9.4-13.6 英里)。密西西比河以西地区,尤其是山区分部,与 CoC 认证机构的距离最远(99.2 英里):结论:尽管各组与非CoC医院的距离相近,但CoC医院距离大型和小型农村县城的距离远于城市县城,这表明农村患者获得CoC认证医院提供的多学科综合癌症治疗的机会越来越少。要解决美国农村社区因距离而无法获得高质量、综合性癌症治疗的问题,需要采取多部门合作的方法。
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 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Clinical outcomes and profitability following rural hospital mergers and acquisitions. Community responses and adaptations following the closure of a rural pharmacy and primary care facility. Weight status underestimation and weight management goals among adults in the rural South of the United States. Social needs and health outcomes in two rural Veteran populations. Association between obesogenic environments and childhood overweight/obesity across the United States: Differences by rurality.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1