Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap: Three Institutional Approaches

Levit, Laura A., Byatt, Leslie, Lyss, Alan P., Paskett, Electra D., Levit, Kathryn, Kirkwood, Kelsey, Schenkel, Caroline, Schilsky, Richard L.·2020·JCO Oncology Practice
DOI 10.1200/op.20.00174
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Patients in rural areas face limited access to medical and oncology providers, long travel times, and low recruitment to clinical trials, all of which affect quality of care and health outcomes. Rural counties also have high rates of cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes. On April 10, 2019, ASCO hosted Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap, the second event in its State of Cancer Care in America series. The event focused on two aspects of rural cancer care: a review of the major issues and concerns in delivering rural cancer care and a discussion of creative solutions to address rural-nonrural disparities. This article draws from the event and supporting literature to summarize the challenges to delivering high-quality care in rural communities, update ASCO’s workforce data on the geographic distribution of oncologists, and highlight 3 institutional approaches to addressing these challenges in diverse rural settings. The experience of the 3 institutions featured in the article suggests that increasing rural patients’ access to care requires expanding services and decreasing travel distances, mitigating financial burdens when insurance coverage is limited, opening avenues to clinical trial participation, and creating partnerships between providers and community leaders to address local gaps in care. Because the characteristics of rural communities, health care resources, and patient populations are not homogeneous, rural health disparities require local solutions that are based on community needs, available resources, and trusting and collaborative partnerships.

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 · 10.1200/op.20.00174

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Cited by

See all 331

Metadata

Authors
Levit, L. A., Byatt, L., Lyss, A. P., Paskett, E. D., Levit, K., Kirkwood, K., Schenkel, C., & Schilsky, R. L.
Venue
JCO Oncology Practice
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2020-07
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
422-430
ISSN
  • 2688-1527 (ISSN-L)
  • 2688-1535
DOI
10.1200/op.20.00174
OpenAlex
W3036204375
Cited by
331
References
28
FWCI
30.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap: Three Institutional Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/op.20.00174
The paper
Levit, L. A., Byatt, L., Lyss, A. P., Paskett, E. D., Levit, K., Kirkwood, K., Schenkel, C., & Schilsky, R. L. (2020). Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap: Three Institutional Approaches. JCO Oncology Practice. https://doi.org/10.1200/op.20.00174

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.