Referral Patterns of Patients for Palliative Radiation Therapy in British Columbia: A Comparison Between Rural and Urban Family Physicians

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that palliative radiation therapy (PRT) is often underused, especially in rural and remote settings despite evidence supporting its effectiveness in managing symptoms from advanced or metastatic cancer.PurposeTo identify factors which influence family physicians (FPs) in British Columbia (BC) to refer patients for PRT at the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) and to compare referral patterns between FPs in rural and urban areas.Methods and MaterialsA total of 1,001 questionnaires were sent to all FPs practicing in rural areas and randomly to FPs in urban areas (351 and 650, respectively). Rural and urban areas were chosen based on our previous study of utilization rates of PRT in BC. The questionnaire was adapted from a previously validated survey, and was used to obtain information on referral practices of FPs in BC. FPs who did not practice family medicine or where 80% of their practice was spent with either obstetrical or pediatric patients were excluded.ResultsThe overall response rate was 33% (44% rural vs. 28% urban). Rural FPs were more involved in both palliative care and metastatic cancer management of their patients (88% vs. 74%; P = .01 and 58% vs. 39%; P = .01). No difference was observed in the FPs' awareness of the BCCA's Radiation Oncology Program. The most significant factors influencing an FP to refer a patient for PRT were: poor functional status, inconvenience to travel and life expectancy. A higher proportion of rural FPs had 10 years or less of experience in family practice than the urban FPs (P = .03). There was no significant difference in the formal training or additional training between the rural and urban FPs.ConclusionsThis study found that FPs practicing in rural areas were more involved in palliative management of their patients and participated more in the care of patients with advanced or metastatic cancer than those in urban areas. They also more commonly referred patients for palliative radiotherapy than their urban counterparts. The reported factors that influenced rural and urban FPs to refer were patients' functional status and life expectancy, combined with uncertain benefit and potential side effects of radiotherapy. More than twice as many FPs from rural compared to urban areas were influenced by perceived inconvenience to travel for palliative radiotherapy. After controlling for potential confounding factors, FP awareness of the radiotherapy program, high participation in advanced, metastatic, or palliative care of cancer patients, formal training in radiation oncology, and additional training in palliative care were all associated with an increased probability of ever referring for palliative radiotherapy.