News
Parts of the country are recording diagnosis rates double the national average, while survival chances vary widely based on where patients live.
The rate of survival (above) is significantly lower in regional areas.
The latest version of the Australian Cancer Atlas shows postcodes continue to have a major impact on someone’s likelihood of receiving a diagnosis, as well as their chances of surviving.
The Atlas, a collaboration between the Cancer Council Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology, offers unique information on cancer prevalence and geographical patterns.
It has revealed that parts of the country, such as Mackay, are reporting diagnosis rates 100% above the Australian average, while survival rates for those living in regional and remote areas are consistently lower than their urban counterparts.
Cancer Council Queensland’s Professor Peter Baade says their research demonstrates ‘the disparities faced by Australians living in regional and remote areas have not improved over time’.
‘There is substantial evidence that, when it comes to cancer, where you live really matters,’ he said.
Mackay GP and RACGP President Dr Nicole Higgins was saddened when she saw her town at the top of the diagnosis list, but not necessarily surprised.
‘My community has got high levels of smoking and alcohol use and that reflects what I see in practice,’ she told newsGP.
‘But people who live in rural and regional Australia often present later, and with more complex illness, so this map gives us an opportunity to have a conversation with our community about how we can do this better.’
The map’s data can be broken down into cancer types, diagnoses, suburbs, sex, risk factors, screening rates and hospital stays.
It shows clearly the country’s contrast between levels of diagnosis and survival rates.
Even though the rates of cancer out in regional and remote areas was lower, they had worse rates of survival.
In the remote NT town of Yuendumu, cancer survival rates are at their lowest – 56% worse than the Australian average.
Associate Professor Joel Rhee, Chair of RACGP Specific Interests Cancer and Palliative Care, told newsGP the Atlas raises questions about equity and underinvestment in rural communities in health and in general.
He also notes that while there are several reasons for the difference in cancer outcomes, they are not all centred on personal choices.
‘We know that, on average, people living in rural areas are more likely to engage in unhealthy risk behaviours such as cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, unhealthy diet, and less physical activity,’ he said.
‘It is important to acknowledge that these behaviours are not simply about personal choice.
‘Rather, they are strongly linked to underlying social factors that often affect rural communities.’
Outside of lifestyle factors, Associate Professor Rhee says there are also access issues and the matter of regional stoicism.
‘While newer modalities such as telehealth have helped to narrow the gap, it goes without saying that people living in rural and regional areas face significant access difficulties compared with people living in large urban centres,’ he said.
‘There is some evidence of rural stoicism where people living in rural areas are less likely to seek healthcare for symptoms that are perceived to be self-limiting.’
So, what can be done about these rates?
Dr Higgins says it’s a community effort, and that they have made changes before.
‘It wasn’t that long ago, when Mackay was featured in “the Biggest Loser” because we were the most overweight community,’ she said.
‘But we’ve made change as a community and we’re actually now just under the national average for obesity.’
Associate Professor Rhee says a huge amount of work is required to even out the national averages.
‘But I think the right starting point is a significant investment in rural communities to address the underlying social determinants of health,’ he said.
Log in below to join the conversation.