Existing research from several countries has suggested that rural-dwellers may have poorer cancer survival than urban-dwellers. However, to date, the global literature has not been systematically reviewed to determine whether a rural cancer survival disadvantage is a global phenomenon. Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing rural and urban cancer survival. At least two authors independently screened and selected studies. We included epidemiological studies comparing cancer survival between urban and rural residents (however defined) that also took socioeconomic status into account. A meta-analysis was conducted using 11 studies with binary rural:urban classifications to determine the magnitude and direction of the association between rurality and differences in cancer survival. The mechanisms for urban-rural cancer survival differences reported were narratively synthesised in all 39 studies. 39 studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies conducted in developed countries. Rural-dwellers were significantly more likely to die when they developed cancer compared to urban-dwellers (HR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 - 1.07). Potential mechanisms were aggregated into an ecological model under the following themes: Patient Level Characteristics; Institutions; Community, Culture and Environment; Policy and Service Organization. Rural residents were 5% less likely to survive cancer. This effect was consistently observed across studies conducted in various geographical regions and using multiple definitions of rurality. High quality mixed-methods research is required to comprehensively evaluate the underlying factors. We have proposed an ecological model to provide a coherent framework for future explanatory research. None.

Background: Individuals with cancer are being given increasing responsibility for the self-management of their health and illness. In other chronic diseases, individuals who experience treatment burden are at risk of poorer health outcomes. Less is known about treatment burden and its impact on individuals with cancer. This systematic review investigated perceptions of treatment burden in individuals living with and beyond cancer. Methods and findings: Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched for qualitative studies that explored treatment burden in individuals with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer at any stage of their diagnostic/treatment trajectory. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted. Study quality was assessed using a modified CASP checklist. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021145601). Forty-eight studies were included. Health management after cancer involved cognitive, practical, and relational work for patients. Individuals were motivated to perform health management work to improve life-expectancy, manage symptoms, and regain a sense of normality. Performing health care work could be empowering and gave individuals a sense of control. Treatment burden occurred when there was a mismatch between the resources needed for health management and their availability. Individuals with chronic and severe symptoms, financial challenges, language barriers, and limited social support are particularly at risk of treatment burden. For those with advanced cancer, consumption of time and energy by health care work is a significant burden. Conclusion: Treatment burden could be an important mediator of inequities in cancer outcomes. Many of the factors leading to treatment burden in individuals with cancer are potentially modifiable. Clinicians should consider carefully what they are asking or expecting patients to do, and the resources required, including how much patient time will be consumed.

Objectives To review the nature and scope of apps targeting individuals living with and beyond cancer. Design Scoping review, searching the two largest app stores, Google Play and Apple’s App store. App descriptions were exported verbatim, and summarised descriptively, thematically and by content coding. Results We included 151 apps targeting individuals living with and beyond cancer. Most targeted all cancer types (n=89, 58.9%) or breast cancer (n=22, 14.6%) and originated in the USA (n=68, 45.0%). The country of origin was unclear for 31 (20.5%) apps. Most apps were developed by commercial companies/private individuals (n=64, 43%) or non-profit organisations (n=30, 19.9%) and marketed apps in terms of fighting metaphors, navigating a journey and becoming empowered to take control. App content could be summarised under five main categories: (1) imparting information about cancer; (2) planning and organising cancer care; (3) interacting with others (including others affected by cancer and healthcare professionals); (4) enacting management strategies and adjusting to life with or beyond cancer and (5) getting feedback about cancer management, for example, by sharing self-monitoring reports with professionals. We found some apps describing ‘cures’ for cancer or selling products, such as alkaline waters to cancer survivors. Conclusions Apps are currently available via on-line stores that cover a large spectrum of cancer survivorship activities. The effects of such apps on clinical consultations, patient work/burden and clinical outcomes merit further attention. Most apps are developed by commercial organisations, and promises of empowerment in the ‘fight’ against cancer are tempered by the potential for exaggerated claims and exploitation.

Background: People diagnosed with cancer following emergency presentation have poorer short-term survival. To what extent this signifies a missed opportunity for earlier diagnosis in primary care remains unclear as little detailed data exist on the patient/general practitioner interaction beforehand. Methods: Analysis of primary care and regional data for 1802 cancer patients from Northeast Scotland. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for patient and GP practice predictors of emergency presentation. Qualitative context coding of primary care interaction before emergency presentation. Results: Emergency presentations equalled 20% (n=365). Twenty-eight per cent had no relevant prior GP contact. Of those with prior GP contact 30% were admitted while waiting to be seen in secondary care, and 19% were missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Associated predictors: no prior GP contact (OR=3.89; CI 95% 2.14–7.09); having lung (OR=23.24; 95% CI 7.92–68.21), colorectal (OR=18.49; CI 95% 6.60–51.82) and upper GI cancer (OR=18.97; CI 95% 6.08–59.23); ethnicity (OR=2.78; CI 95% 1.27–6.06). Conclusions: Our novel approach has revealed that emergency cancer presentation is more complex than previously thought. Patient delay, prolonged referral pathways and missed opportunities by GPs all contribute, but emergency presentation can also represent effective care. Resources should be used proportionately to raise public and GP awareness and improve post-referral pathways.

Objectives Pain remains a problem for people with cancer despite effective treatments being available. We aimed to explore current pain management strategies used by patients, caregivers and professionals and to investigate opportunities for digital technologies to enhance cancer pain management. Methods A qualitative study comprising semistructured interviews and focus groups. Patients with cancer pain, their caregivers and health professionals from Northeast Scotland were recruited from a purposive sample of general practices. Professionals were recruited from regional networks. Results Fifty one participants took part in 33 interviews (eight patients alone, six patient/caregiver dyads and 19 professionals) and two focus groups (12 professionals). Living with cancer was hard work for patients and caregivers and comparable to a ‘full-time job’. Patients had personal goals which involved controlling pain intensity and balancing this with analgesic use, side effects, overall symptom burden and social/physical activities. Digital technologies were embraced by most patients, and made living life with advanced cancer easier and richer (eg, video calls with family). Technology was underutilised for pain and symptom management. There were suggestions that technology could support self-monitoring and communicating problems to professionals, but patients and professionals were concerned about technological monitoring adding to the work of managing illness. Conclusions Cancer pain management takes place in the context of multiple, sometimes competing personal goals. It is possible that technology could be used to help patients share individual symptom experiences and goals, thus enhancing tailored care. The challenge is for digital solutions to add value without adding undue burden.