Although rural-urban cancer disparities have been explored with some depth, disparities within seemingly homogeneous rural areas have received limited attention. However, exploration of intrarural cancer incidence may have important public health implications for risk assessment, cancer control, and resource allocation.
The objective of this study was to explore intrastate rural cancer risk and incidence differences within Illinois.
Illinois's 83 rural counties were categorized into northern, central, and southern regions (IL-N, IL-C, and IL-S, respectively). Chi-square test for independence and analysis of variance calculations were performed to assess regional differences in demographic characteristics, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking history, obesity, cancer screening adherence, and density of general practitioners. Age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated for 5 cancer categories: all cancers combined, lung, colorectal, breast (female), and prostate cancers. Unadjusted and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to evaluate regional differences in rates for each cancer category.
Socioeconomic deprivation varied by region: 4.5%, 6.9%, and 40.6% of IL-N, IL-C, and IL-S counties, respectively (P < .001). Smoking history also significantly differed by region. Mean former/current smoking prevalence in IL-N, IL-C, and IL-S counties was 46.4%, 48.2%, and 51.4%, respectively (P = .006). In unadjusted analysis, IL-C (IRR = 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.23) and IL-S (IRR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.35) had increased lung cancer incidence compared with IL-N. Elevated risk remained in IL-S after adjusting for relevant factors such as smoking and socioeconomic deprivation (IRR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26).
Socioeconomic deprivation, health behaviors, and lung cancer incidence varied across rural regions. Our findings underscore the importance of identifying cancer risk heterogeneity, even within a state, to effectively target risk factor reduction and cancer control interventions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#12,359,716
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Management & Practice
#1,528
of 2,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,729
of 337,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Management & Practice
#16
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,884 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
