Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ PubMed Centralarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
PubMed Central
Article . 2024
Data sources: PubMed Central
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
The Journal of Rural Health
Article . 2024 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

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; +3 Authors

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

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe 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.MethodsAll 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.FindingsOf 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).ConclusionsDespite 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.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Rural Population, Neoplasms, Hospitals, Rural, Humans, Cancer Care Facilities, Article, United States, Health Services Accessibility, Accreditation

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    3
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
3
Top 10%
Average
Average
Green
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research