Quality of Life of Head and Neck Cancer Survivors in Urban and Rural Ireland - Audrey Thomas
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
irish-cancer-society -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
540 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Quality of Life of Head and Neck Cancer Survivors in Urban and Rural Ireland - Audrey Thomas
Quality of Life of Head and NeckCancer Survivors in Urban and Rural IrelandAudrey Alforque Thomas1
Timmons A2, Molcho M1, Gallagher P3, O’Neill C1,Butow P4, Gooberman-Hill R5, O’Sullivan E6, Sharp L2
1National University of Ireland, Galway; 2National Cancer Registry Ireland; 3Dublin City University; 4University of Sydney, Australia; 5University of Bristol, UK; 6University College Cork
Funding from Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement FellowshipHealth Research Board
Irelandhead and neck cancer
Urban – Rural Comparisons
• Mostly incidence, treatment, clinical outcomes• United States, Australia, Canada, Scotland• Breast, colorectal, prostate cancers
health-related quality of lifeHow does health-related quality of life for head and neck cancer survivors differ in urban versus rural Ireland ?
SuN Study
• Support Needs of Survivors of Head & Neck Cancer Study• Data collection funded by HRB• Respondents identified from the Registry• 583 head and neck cancer survivors• Linked to Registry data
The SuN Study
Head & Neck Cancer
• Composite variable• Distance to treating hospital• Population density• Self-reported area
• Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)• Physical• Social/Family• Emotional• Functional• Head and Neck module
Measuring urban/rural and wellbeing
Analysis
FACT domain scores were skewed• Bootstrap linear regression• Bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals• Similar to OLS linear regression
Living in a rural area is associated with higher wellbeing
Physical Social Emotional Functional HN
Rural 1.27 0.89 0.99 1.41 1.55Female -0.22 1.64 -1.15 0.56 0.91Medical card -1.78 -0.79 -1.63 -2.44 -2.24Married/cohabiting 0.42 2.36 -0.18 1.76 1.10Third Level education 1.96 -1.51 0.61 0.69 2.62Age at survey 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.04Cancer returned/spread -3.77 0.44 -1.93 -2.22 -4.34Larynx -0.54 -0.24 -1.22 -1.65 -2.41Mouth -0.61 0.61 -0.85 -0.28 -3.36Pharynx -2.63 -1.17 -1.51 -2.65 -7.79
Coefficients in bold are significant at the 0.05 level
Living in a rural area is associated with higher wellbeing
• Drift Hypothesis• Breeder Hypothesis• Biophilia Hypothesis• Rural culture
Can only speculate about why there is a relationship
Urban and rural cancer survivors havedifferent life experiences.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Eamonn O’Leary, Statistical consultantNeil McCluskey, Geographic information consultant
Funding from Health Research Board