Rural and Urban patients' Requirements and Experiences of Out-of-hours medical care after cancer (RUREO): a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how individuals diagnosed with cancer use out-of-hours (OOH) medical services, describe the behavioural determinants of OOH service use and explore whether there are differences between urban and rural dwellers. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional questionnaire study conducted in Northeast Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was sent to 2549 individuals diagnosed with cancer in the preceding 12 months identified through the National Health Service Grampian Cancer Care Pathway database. 490 individuals returned the questionnaire (19.2% response rate), 61.8% were urban and 34.9% were rural. OUTCOMES: Outcomes were differences in frequency of medical service use and attitudes towards OOH services between urban and rural participants. Patient experience (qualitative data) was compared. RESULTS: Daytime services were used much more frequently than OOH services-83.3% of participants had never contacted an OOH primary care service in the preceding 12 months but 44.2% had used their daytime general practitioner at least four times. There were no significant differences between urban and rural dwellers in the patterns of OOH or daytime service use, the behavioural determinants of service use or the experiences of OOH services. Rural dwellers were significantly less likely to agree that OOH services were close by and more likely to agree that where they lived made it difficult to access these services. Rural dwellers were no more likely to agree or disagree that distance would affect their decision to contact OOH services. Qualitative results highlighted barriers to accessing OOH services exist for all patients but that long travel distances can be offset by service configuration, travel infrastructure and access to a car. CONCLUSIONS: Urban and rural dwellers have similar beliefs, attitudes towards and patterns of OOH service use. In Northeast Scotland, place of residence is unlikely to be the most important factor in influencing decisions about whether to access OOH medical care.

Impact of geography on Scottish cancer diagnoses in primary care: Results from a national cancer diagnosis audit.

BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis of global research found cancer patients living in rural locations are 5% less likely to survive than their urban counterparts, a survival disadvantage that has never been satisfactorily explained. AIMS: [1] To describe and compare primary-care involvement in the diagnosis of cancer between rural and urban patients in Scotland. [2] To compare the length of key diagnostic pathway intervals between rural and urban cancer patients in Scotland. METHODS: Participating GPs in the Scottish National Cancer Audit of cancer diagnosis (2017) collected data from primary-care medical records on the diagnostic pathway of patients diagnosed in 2014. Residential postcodes designated the patients as rural or urban dwellers. Key cancer diagnostic pathway intervals (primary, diagnostic, secondary, and treatment) were compared using binary logistic regression. Descriptive analysis included comparison of patient characteristics, and routes to diagnosis. RESULTS: 73 Scottish general practices provided data on 1,905 cancer diagnoses. Rural patients did not have higher odds of prolonged diagnostic intervals compared to urban patients but were significantly more likely to have had a cancer alarm feature at presentation and three or more primary-care consultations prior to referral. Rural GPs were significantly more likely to perceive an avoidable delay in their patient's diagnostic pathway. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence that rural patients were more likely to be subject to prolonged cancer diagnostic delays than urban patients. Rural patients may experience primary care differently in the lead-up to a cancer diagnosis. The effect on outcome is probably negligible, but further research is required to confirm this.

Influences of rurality on action to diagnose cancer by primary care practitioners - Results from a Europe-wide survey in 20 countries.

BACKGROUND: Rural-dwellers have poorer cancer outcomes than urban counterparts, for reasons which are unclear. At healthcare institution level, poorer access to investigations and different clinical decision-making by rural primary healthcare practitioners (PCPs) could be important. AIM: To compare access to investigations, attitudes to cancer diagnosis and clinical decision-making between rural and urban PCPs. SETTING: A vignette-based cross-sectional survey of rural and urban PCPs in 20 European countries. METHODS: Data on PCPs' decision-making and attitudes to cancer diagnosis were based on clinical scenarios. Comparisons were made using tests of proportion, univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 1779 PCPs completing the survey 541 30.4 %) practiced rurally. Rural PCPs had significantly less direct access to all investigative modalities: ultrasound; endoscopy; x-ray and advanced screening (all p < 0.001). Rural PCPs were as likely as urban PCPs to take diagnostic action (investigation and/or referral) at the index consultation in all four clinical vignettes ((OR, 95 % CI) for lung: 0.90, 0.72-1.12; ovarian: 0.95, 0.75-1.19; breast: 0.87, 0.69-1.09; colorectal: 0.98, 0.75-1.30). Rural PCPs were less likely to refer to a specialist at the index consultation for ovarian cancer (OR 0.71 95 % CI 0.51-0.99). Rural PCPs were significantly more likely to report that their patients faced barriers to accessing specialist care, but practitioners did not report greater difficulties making specialist referral than their urban counterparts CONCLUSIONS: European rural PCPs report poorer access to investigations but are at least as likely as urban PCPs to investigate or refer patients that might have cancer at the index consultation.