Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

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 access
Onega, Tracy, Duell, Eric J., Shi, Xun, Wang, Dongmei, Demidenko, Eugene, Goodman, David·2008·Cancer

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.23229

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 429

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.