Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Cervical cancer outcome by type of health care facilities: National Cancer Database, 2004-2015.

Authors: HyounKyoung G, Park; Zhixin E, Wang; Chenguang, Wang; Warner K, Huh; Sejong, Bae;

Cervical cancer outcome by type of health care facilities: National Cancer Database, 2004-2015.

Abstract

The National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2015 was analyzed to identify cervical cancer outcomes associated with demographic and clinical characteristics measured by types of facility. Chi-Square tests were used to compare proportions and logistic regression to determine factors associated with cervical cancer outcomes. Women treated at Academic/Research Programs (ARPs) were younger at diagnosis, more likely black, less educated and more in Stage 2, lived further away from treatment facilities, had less comorbidities and better 5-year survival, and were more likely to be alive at 30 and 90 days after surgery compared to other programs. Women treated at Community Cancer Programs were more likely 75 and older at diagnosis, more likely to receive radiation treatment and more in Stage 4, more living in rural areas and less than 10 miles from the facility, and had more comorbidities, and lower 5-year survival compared to other programs. Women treated at Comprehensive Community Cancer Programs were more likely white and educated, had more private insurance, and underwent surgery. Women treated at Integrated Network Cancer Programs were more likely to live in urban, south region, and in Stage 1B2, had more surgery and one comorbidity, and died fewer than 30 days after surgery. The type of facility and treatment had varied effects on mortality and 5-year survival. Considering the different cervical cancer outcomes from different health care facilities, further research is needed to identify what factors influence women to choose a health care facility for their treatment and how this choice can affect different health outcomes.

  • 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).
    0
    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.
    Average
    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!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!