Search

Objective This paper aims to describe cancer survival and examine association between survival and socio-demographic characteristics across Barwon South- Western region ( BSWR) in Victoria, Australia. Design This study is based on the retrospective cohort database of patients accessing oncology services across BSWR. Setting Six rural and three urban hospital settings across the BSWR. Participants The participants were patients who were diagnosed with cancer in 2009. Main outcome measures Overall survival (OS) of participants was the main outcome measure. Results Total of 1778 eligible patients had four-year OS for all cancers combined of 59.7% (95% CI, 57.4-62.0). Improved OS was observed for patients in the upper socio-economic tertile (64.2%; 95% CI, 60.9-67.5) compared to the middle (59.3%; 95% CI, 55.5-63.1) and lowest tertiles (49.6%; 95% CI, 44.2-54.9) ( P < 0.01). On multivariate analyses, higher socio-economic status remained a significant predictor of OS adjusting for gender, remoteness and age ( HR [hazard ratio] 0.81; 95% CI 0.74-0.89; P < 0.01). Remoteness was significantly associated with improved OS after adjusting for age, gender and socio-economic status ( HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; P = 0.01). Older age ≥70 years compared to <70 years conferred inferior OS ( HR 3.08; 95% CI, 2.64-3.59; P < 0.01). Conclusions Our study confirmed improved survival outcomes for patients of higher socio-economic status and younger age. Future research to explain the unexpected survival benefit in patients who lived in more remote areas should examine factors including the correlation between geographical residence and eventual treatment facility as well as compare the BSWR care model to other regions' approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe travel burden and travel-related financial burden experienced by cancer patients over the first year after diagnosis. Design, setting, participants: Population-based longitudinal cohort of recent adult cancer patients diagnosed with the eight most incident cancers recruited from New South Wales and Victorian Cancer Registries. Self-report survey data were collected at 6 and 12 months after diagnosis from 1410 participants (city: n = 890; regional/remote: n = 520). Main outcome measures: Travel time to cancer treatment, living away from home for treatment, travel-related treatment decisions, extent of financial issues, unmet need for financial help. Results: During the first 12 months after diagnosis, outer regional/remote residents had the greatest travel burden; 61% (n = 79) travelled at least 2 hours one way to receive treatment, and 49% (n = 66) lived away from home to receive treatment. Strongest associates of travel burden were living in regional/remote areas (odds ratio (OR) = 18.9-135.7), having received surgery (OR = 6.7) or radiotherapy (OR = 3.6). Between 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, 2% (n = 24) of patients declined cancer treatment because of the time it would take to get to treatment. Patients who travelled more than 2 hours or lived away for treatment reported significantly greater financial difficulties (38%; 40%) than those who did not (12%; 14%), even after adjusting for covariates. Conclusions: Travel burden is greatest for rural patients, and is associated with greater financial burden. Appropriate and adequate provision of travel and accommodation assistance schemes remains paramount to achieving equitable delivery of cancer services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]