The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Geographic access to cancer care in the U.S.
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although access to cancer care is known to influence patient outcomes, to the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding geographic access to cancer care, and how it may vary by population characteristics. This study estimated travel time to specialized cancer care settings for the continental U.S. population and calculated per capita oncologist supply. METHODS: The closest travel times were estimated using a network analysis of the road distance weighted by travel speeds from the population or geographic centroid of every ZIP area in the continental U.S. to that of the nearest cancer care setting under consideration: National Cancer Institute (NCI)‐designated Cancer Centers, academic medical centers, and oncologists. Alaska and Hawaii were excluded because travel in these states is often not road‐based. Population and geographic characteristics including race/ethnicity, income, education, and region were derived from U.S. Census 2000 data and from rural‐urban commuting area classifications. Oncologist supply per 100,000 residents in Hospital Referral Regions (pHRRs) was estimated by region. RESULTS: Travel times of ≤1 hour were estimated for 45.2% of the population to the nearest NCI Cancer Center, 69.4% to the nearest academic‐based care, and 91.8% to any specialized cancer care. Native Americans, nonurban dwellers, and residents in the South had the longest travel times to the nearest NCI Cancer Center compared with the overall U.S. population (median [interquartile range (IQR)] in minutes: 155 [62–308], 173 [111–257], and 164 [70–272], vs 78 [27–172], respectively). Travel burdens persisted for Native Americans and nonurban populations across all 3 cancer care settings. For all population strata, travel times markedly increased as the degree of cancer care specialization increased. The median oncologist supply for pHRRs was 2.83 per 100,000 individuals. CONCLUSIONS: There are population groups with limited access to the most specialized cancer care settings. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Revisiting the Behavioral Model and Access to Medical Care: Does it Matter?
Andersen, R. M. (1995) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2137284 · Cited by 9,831
Cited by
The role of digital health technology in rural cancer care delivery: A systematic review
Morris, B. B., Rossi, B., & Fuemmeler, B. (2022) · The Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/jrh.12619 · Cited by 104
Health care concerns of rural childhood cancer survivors
Warner, E. L., Montenegro, R. E., Stroup, A., Kinney, A. Y., & Kirchhoff, A. C. (2014) · Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved · doi:10.1353/hpu.2014.0095 · Cited by 35
Xu, H., Kadambi, S., Mohile, S. G., Yang, S., Kehoe, L. A., Wells, M., Culakova, E., Kamen, C., Obrecht, S., Mohamed, M., et al. (2021) · Journal of Geriatric Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2021.04.002 · Cited by 33
Wakefield, D. V., Carnell, M., Dove, A. P. H., Edmonston, D. Y., Garner, W. B., Hubler, A., Makepeace, L., Hanson, R., Ozdenerol, E., Chun, S. G., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.016 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Onega, T., Duell, E. J., Shi, X., Wang, D., Demidenko, E., & Goodman, D.
- Venue
- Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 909-918
- ISSN
- 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0142
- OpenAlex
- W2007909376
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 28.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Geographic access to cancer care in the U.S. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.23229
- The paper
- Onega, T., Duell, E. J., Shi, X., Wang, D., Demidenko, E., & Goodman, D. (2008). Geographic access to cancer care in the U.S. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23229
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.