To characterize distance traveled for breast cancer screening and to sites of service for breast cancer treatment, among rural and urban women served by a Washington State healthcare network.
Methods
Data for this study came from one of the largest not-for-profit integrated healthcare delivery systems in Washington State. Generalized linear mixed models with gamma log link function were used to examine the associations between travel distance and sociodemographic and contextual characteristics of patients.
Results
Median travel distance for breast cancer screening facilities, hematologist/oncologists, radiation oncologists, or surgeons was 11, 19, 23, or 11 miles, respectively. Travel distance to breast cancer screening or referral facilities was longer in non-core metropolitan ZIP codes compared to metropolitan ZIP codes. AI/AN and Hispanic women travelled longer distances to reach referral facilities compared to other racial and ethnic groups.
Conclusion
Disparities exist in travel distance to breast cancer screening and treatment. Further research is needed to describe sociodemographic and system level characteristics that contribute to such disparities and to discover novel approaches to alleviate this burden.
MariottoABYabroffKRShaoY, et al.Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst2011; 103: 117–128. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq495.
MandelblattJSStoutNKSchechterCB, et al.Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies. Ann Intern Med2016; 164: 215–225. DOI: 10.7326/m15-1536.
7.
GangnonRESpragueBLStoutNK, et al.The contribution of mammography screening to breast cancer incidence trends in the United States: an updated age-period-cohort model. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev: A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research2015; 24: 905–912. Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1286.
8.
SubramanianSTrogdonJEkwuemeDU, et al.Cost of breast cancer treatment in Medicaid: implications for state programs providing coverage for low-income women. Med Care2011; 49: 89–95. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181f81c32.
9.
BlumenHFitchKPolkusV. Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service. Am Health Drug Benefits2016; 9: 23–32.
10.
BenavidezGAZgodicAZahndWE, et al.Disparities in Meeting USPSTF Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Among Women in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis2021; 18: E37. DOI: 10.5888/pcd18.200315.
JensenLFPedersenAFAndersenB, et al.Distance to screening site and non-participation in screening for breast cancer: a population-based study. J Publ Health2014; 36: 292–299. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt068.
13.
MaheswaranRPearsonTJordanH, et al.Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK. J Epidemiol Community Health2006; 60: 208–212. DOI: 10.1136/jech.200X.038398.
14.
EngelmanKKHawleyDBGazawayR, et al.Impact of geographic barriers on the utilization of mammograms by older rural women. J Am Geriatr Soc2002; 50: 62–68. DOI: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50009.x.
15.
ZenkSNTarlovESunJ. Spatial equity in facilities providing low- or no-fee screening mammography in Chicago neighborhoods. J Urban Health2006; 83: 195–210. DOI: 10.1007/s11524-005-9023-4.
16.
PeipinsLAGrahamSYoungR, et al.Time and distance barriers to mammography facilities in the Atlanta metropolitan area. J Community Health2011; 36: 675–683. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-011-9359-5.
17.
AndersonCIslamJYElizabeth HodgsonM, et al.Long-Term Satisfaction and Body Image After Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol2017; 24: 1499–1506. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5753-7.
18.
ChatterjeeAPyferBCzernieckiB, et al.Early postoperative outcomes in lumpectomy versus simple mastectomy. J Surg Res2015; 198: 143–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.01.054.
19.
FisherBAndersonSBryantJ, et al.Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med2002; 347: 1233–1241. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152.
20.
MamtaniAMorrowM. Why Are There So Many Mastectomies in the United States?Annu Rev Med2017; 68: 229–241. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-043015-075227.
21.
YangRLWapnirI. Hispanic Breast Cancer Patients Travel Further for Equitable Surgical Care at a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Health Equity2018; 2: 109–116. DOI: 10.1089/heq.2017.0021.
22.
HamptonT. Studies address racial and geographic disparities in breast cancer treatment. Jama; United States2008; 300: 1641.
23.
ShaversVLBrownML. Racial and ethnic disparities in the receipt of cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst2002; 94: 334–357. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/94.5.334.
24.
TsengJFKronowitzSJSunCC, et al.The effect of ethnicity on immediate reconstruction rates after mastectomy for breast cancer. Cancer2004; 101: 1514–1523. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20529.
25.
YangRLNewmanASReinkeCE, et al.Racial disparities in immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy: impact of state and federal health policy changes. Ann Surg Oncol2013; 20: 399–406. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2607-9.
26.
BallasLKElkinEBSchragD, et al.Radiation therapy facilities in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006; 66: 1204–1211. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.035.
HaniganIHallGDearKB. A comparison of methods for calculating population exposure estimates of daily weather for health research. Int J Health Geogr2006; 5: 38. DOI: 10.1186/1476-072x-5-38.
SinghGK. Area deprivation and widening inequalities in US mortality, 1969-1998. Am J Publ Health2003; 93: 1137–1143. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.93.7.1137.
31.
KnightonAJSavitzLBelnapT, et al.Introduction of an Area Deprivation Index Measuring Patient Socioeconomic Status in an Integrated Health System: Implications for Population Health. EGEMS (Wash DC)2016; 4: 1238. DOI: 10.13063/2327-9214.1238.
32.
HuntJFVBuckinghamWKimAJ, et al.Association of Neighborhood-Level Disadvantage With Cerebral and Hippocampal Volume. JAMA Neurol2020; 77: 451–460. DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4501.
33.
WWAMI Rural Health Research Center. Rural-urban commuting area codes (RUCAs). Available at:http://depts.washington.edu/uwruca/(accessed on 9/1/2021).
EpsteinDHTyburskiMCraigIM, et al.Real-time tracking of neighborhood surroundings and mood in urban drug misusers: application of a new method to study behavior in its geographical context. Drug Alcohol Depend2014; 134: 22–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.09.007.
36.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/
37.
LongacreCFNeprashHTShippeeND, et al.Evaluating Travel Distance to Radiation Facilities Among Rural and Urban Breast Cancer Patients in the Medicare Population. J Rural Health2020; 36: 334–346. DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12413.
38.
GreerMDAmiriSDenneyJT, et al.Disparities in Access to Radiation Therapy Facilities Among American Indians/Alaska Natives and Hispanics in Washington State. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.08.038.
39.
GuadagnoloBACinaKHelbigP, et al.Assessing cancer stage and screening disparities among Native American cancer patients. Publ Health Rep2009; 124: 79–89. DOI: 10.1177/003335490912400111.
40.
KoezeEPatelJKSinghviA. Where Americans live far from the emergency room. The New York Times, 2020.
41.
Jerome-D'EmiliaBGachupinFCSupleePD. A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators to Mammography in American Indian/Alaska Native Women. J Transcult Nurs2019; 30: 173–186. DOI: 10.1177/1043659618793706.
42.
CDC - NCHS. National center for health statistics. 2021.
43.
IAEA. Directory of radiotherapy centers. Available at:https://dirac.iaea.org/(accessed on 8/19/2021).
44.
MaroongrogeS. Geographic Access to Radiation Therapy in the United States. Proceedings of the ASTRO; 2020: 2020.
45.
SkillmanSMDahalA. Washington State’s physician workforce in 2016. 2017.
