Search

Objectives: To compare the percentage of patients who had an oral cancer examination (OCE) by their primary care provider (PCP) in medical clinics participating in a web-based education with poster reminder intervention to that of patients in control clinics. To also determine the effects for PCPs in medical clinics participating in the web-based education with poster reminder intervention as compared with those in control clinics regarding: a) index of knowledge of oral cancer risk factors (RiskOC) and b) index of knowledge of oral cancer diagnostic procedures (DiagOC).Methods: Six medical clinics were recruited to participate in this study and randomly assigned to an intervention group or a control group. PCPs (physicians, physician assistants, and advanced practice registered nurses) took a pretest; 2 weeks later, they participated in the web-based educational program, including a posttest (intervention group) or took a posttest only (control group). In each clinic, 1 week following completion of the PCPs' posttests, 94 patients were recruited to complete a one-page survey.Results: The intervention clinics were found to be a significant factor for the PCPs to perform patient OCEs, after controlling for significant covariates, that is, age, main reason for clinic visit, OCE for patient in the past year, clinic's mean DiagOC score, and clinic's mean RiskOC score. The intervention also resulted in the PCPs increasing their pretest to posttest RiskOC scores.Conclusions: The use of intervention has the potential to increase PCPs' short-term knowledge and to increase the frequency of PCPs' routine, nonsymptomatic opportunistic OCE on patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Health disparities exist according to an individual's place of residence. We evaluated the association between primary area of residence (urban v rural) according to treatment provider (university based v community based) and overall survival in patients with lymphoma and determined whether there are patient groups that could benefit from better coordination of care., Patients and Methods: Population-based, retrospective cohort study of 2,330 patients with centrally confirmed lymphoma from Nebraska and surrounding states and treated by university-based or community-based oncologists from 1982 to 2006., Results: Among urban residents, 321 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (UUB) and 816 (35%) were treated by community-based providers (UCB). Among rural residents, 332 (14%) were treated by university-based providers (RUB), and 861 (37%) were treated by community-based providers (RCB). The relative risk (RR) of death among UUB, UCB, and RUB were not statistically different. However, RCB had a higher risk of death (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.65; P = .01; and RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.49; P = .01) when compared with UUB and RUB, respectively. This association was true in both low- and intermediate-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, UCB, RUB, and RCB were all at higher risk of death when compared with UUB., Conclusion: Survival outcomes of patients with lymphoma may be associated with place of residence and treatment provider. High-risk patients from rural areas may benefit from better coordination of care.

We evaluated whether or not a patient's area of primary residence is an independent risk factor for overall survival (OS) after HLA-identical sibling or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent autologous (n = 1739) or HLA-identical sibling (n = 267) HSCT to treat a hematologic malignancy between 1983 and 2004 at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Primary area of residence, using the patient's zip code, was categorized as either urban or rural (including isolated, small rural, or large rural) according to the Rural Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA) classification system. An association between area of primary residence and survival was examined using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis while adjusting for patient-, disease-, and treatment-related variables. Patients from rural areas who received autologous HSCT had a higher relative risk of death (relative risk = 1.18; P = .016) than urban patients who underwent the same procedure. Survival rates in patients from rural and urban locations are as follows: 1 year, 73% vs 78% (P = .04); 5 year, 48% vs 54% (P = .012). We failed to detect a significant difference in the risk of death according to primary area of residence in the HLA-identical sibling HSCT cohort, although this may be from lack of statistical power. Our findings suggest that the primary location of a patient's residence may be an independent risk factor for survival after HSCT.