Rural dwellers are less likely to survive cancer

Living in the countryside gives you a ‘survival disadvantage’: Rural dwellers are less likely to overcome cancer due to them being isolated from treatment centres

• People who live in rural areas are 5% more likely to die of cancer
• May delay seeking help for symptoms due to their work or family commitments
• Poor transport systems may leave them unable to get to hospital appointments 

Living in the country makes you less likely to survive a cancer diagnosis, research has found.

People who live in remote rural areas are five per cent more likely to die of cancer than city dwellers with the condition.

Possible reasons for the discrepancy are living further away from cancer treatment centres and delaying seeking treatment.

Living in the country makes you less likely to survive cancer, research found (stock)

Aberdeen University scientists reviewed 39 studies carried out around the world to review the impact of where a person lives to their cancer prognosis.

They found that in 30 of the 39 studies there was a clear ‘survival disadvantage’ for rural people compared to their urban counterparts.

• 
  Stress could be spotted by looking at your EYES: Scientists…

  
  Packaging at healthy supermarket Whole Foods contains the…

  
  Doctors should stop saying they are ‘acting down’ when…

  
  What is the average life expectancy in YOUR area?…

Share this article

Around one in five people around the world live rurally – a figure which also holds true for the UK, where around 11.9 million people live in the countryside. 

This is slightly lower in England, at 17.6 per cent, or 9.3million people. 

The research outlines a number of reasons specific to those who live in rural areas that could explain the survival gap.

CANCER-CAUSING ASBESTOS IS IN NINE OUT OF TEN NHS HOSPITALS 

Asbestos can be found in a staggering nine out of ten NHS hospitals, an investigation revealed earlier this week. 

A Freedom of Information request found that 198 out 211 trusts have the cancer-causing substance in their buildings. 

And 352 people have attempted to sue the health service for related diseases in the past four years, figures show.

Asbestos is a naturally-occurring material that was commonly used as an insulator between the 1950s and 70s. 

It has since been linked to cancer of the lungs and their lining, as well as life-threatening scarring of the respiratory system.

Jo Stevens MP, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Occupational Health and Safety, has called for an audit to uncover the extent of the problem.

Asbestos is a term for a group of minerals made of microscopic fibres. It was banned in the UK in 1999, however, buildings constructed beforehand may have some of the substance still in them.

If these buildings remain intact, they are considered to be very low risk, according to the British Lung Foundation.

But if they become damaged, tiny asbestos fibres can be released and breathed in.  

Rural patients may delay seeking help until their symptoms are more serious than those living in cities – possibly due to the nature of their work or their family commitments.

Poorer transport in rural areas may be a factor as may the location of cancer treatment centres – acting as a deterrent to treatment as it is more time consuming to get help.

Lead investigator, Professor Peter Murchie, a GP and primary care cancer expert from the University of Aberdeen said: ‘A previous study showed the inequality faced by rural cancer dwellers in north-east Scotland and we wanted to see if this was replicated in other parts of the world.

‘We found that it is indeed the case and we think the statistic, that if you have cancer and live rurally anywhere in the world, you are five percent less likely to survive it, is quite stark.

‘The task now is to analyse why this is the case and what can be done to close this inequality gap.

‘In this paper we have considered some of the potential reasons but these must really be analysed in closer detail. 

‘The advancement of digital communications is producing new solutions but with more research it should be possible to identify other factors that contribute to this divide.’ 

The type of cancer people get varies with where they live, according to the UK’s National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS).

For example, lung cancer rates in rural areas are two thirds of those in the cities, but breast and prostate cancer incidence rates are higher in villages by 8 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively.

Colorectal cancer is higher among women living in village areas by 6 per cent, but not for males.

However, living in a polluted, traffic-choked urban area is thought to knock around six months off our life expectancy, compared to a rural place with clean air. The research was published in the journal Health and Place.

Source: Read Full Article