"Too young to have this kind of diagnosis": A qualitative exploration of younger adults' experiences of colorectal cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is rising among adults under the age of 50 (early- or young-onset CRC). This population is more likely to have advanced-stage disease at diagnosis, suggesting their diagnostic pathway may be prolonged. To better understand factors influencing this pathway, this study explored patients' experiences of decision-making during a diagnosis of young-onset CRC. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 participants with young-onset CRC diagnosed in 2021-2022 in Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted online or by phone an average 7 months (range 1-13) after diagnosis. Analysis was approached from a critical realist perspective, with themes developed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: Shifting Perception of Urgency, Multidimensional Perception of Role, Making the Most of Resources, Stage of Life, and COVID Adds Complexity. Participants' decision-making evolved over the diagnostic period. As participants perceived urgency to act, they took on a more active role in decision-making, utilising personal resources to access timely care. Their decisions were shaped by stage-of-life considerations, including employment and caring for a young family, with the COVID-19 pandemic adding "…a whole other layer of complexity" to the process. CONCLUSIONS: Younger adults with CRC make decisions in the context of unique considerations, adapting to reduce time to diagnosis, with decisions complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Greater support from health care providers/systems in the diagnostic period may improve timeliness of CRC diagnosis and outcomes in younger adults.

Cancer in general practice research priorities in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) is funded by Cancer Australia to support the development of new cancer in primary care research. We undertook a research prioritisation exercise to identify cancer research priorities in Australian general practice. METHOD: We adapted the nominal group technique, including a literature search and stakeholder survey. An expert group from the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group consolidated and ranked priorities. A second stakeholder survey reviewing the top 50 priorities informed a final prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: Overall, 311 priorities were identified across the cancer continuum. Nearly one-third of priorities were related to cancer survivorship and included strategies to detect recurrence, behavioural interventions and tools to assess physical and psychosocial aspects of survivorship. Prevention/early detection comprised 43.4% of priorities. Palliative care produced the least priorities (9.6%). Cross cutting research priorities (15.1%) included quality and models of care. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to identify cancer research priorities for general practice in Australia. It could be used to inform the development of targeted research and funding to improve the care and outcomes for Australians affected by cancer.

What are the mechanisms underlying the delivery of survivorship care information in Australia? A realist review.

OBJECTIVE: Quality survivorship information is an essential component of cancer care. However, survivors often report not receiving this information and healthcare professionals report limited practical guidance on how to effectively deliver survivorship information. Therefore, this study used realist review methods to identify mechanisms reported within the published literature for communicating survivorship information and to understand the contextual factors that make these mechanisms effective. METHODS: Full-text papers published in CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Ultimate were included. Studies included in this review were conducted in Australia between January 2006 and December 2023, and reported on how information regarding survivorship care was communicated to adult cancer survivors living in the community. This review utilized realist methodologies: text extracts were converted to if-then statements used to generate context-mechanism-outcome theories. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included and six theories for mechanisms that underpin the effective delivery of survivorship information were formed. These include: (1) tailoring information based on the survivors' background, (2) enhancing communication among providers, (3) employing dedicated survivorship staff, (4) providing survivorship training, (5) reducing the burden on survivors to navigate their care, and (6) using multiple modalities to provide information. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can inform practical guidance for how survivorship care information is best delivered in practice. Clinicians can apply this guidance to improve their individual interactions with cancer survivors, as can policymakers to develop healthcare systems and procedures that support effective communication of cancer survivorship information.

Discussions with patients about referral pathways and costs in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer in Victoria, Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival in Australia differs by health insurance status, but why this occurs is uncertain. There are growing concerns about out-of-pocket healthcare costs. We examined patient experiences of referral pathways to diagnosis and treatment of CRC in Victoria, Australia, and discussions about costs, comparing public, private and mixed healthcare system users. METHOD: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 16 purposively sampled, English-speaking patients aged ≥40 years with CRC. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Private patients described greater out-of-pocket expenses balanced by greater choice of provider and access. Public patients perceived limited choice in their diagnostic or treatment provider, although some considered switching systems. Patients trusted their general practitioner or specialist for referrals. Discussions about costs did not meet guideline recommendations. DISCUSSION: There are limited opportunities for informed decision making about public versus private care for cancer diagnosis and treatment, which could contribute to inequalities in outcomes.

Diverse strategies are needed to support physical activity engagement in women who have had breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Physical activity can improve health in people living with and beyond breast cancer; however, how to best support physical activity participation in this population is unclear. This qualitative study sought to identify important physical activity program components for breast cancer. METHODS: Women with previous breast cancer (n = 11) and allied health professionals (n = 7) participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews (n = 15) or focus groups (n = 1). Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis methods. RESULTS: Four main themes were generated including (1) the need for physical activity programs; (2) person-centered programs; (3) flexible physical activity programs; and (4) systems factors. These reflected the health and non-health benefits of physical activity, the need to facilitate agency, the diversity in individual characteristics, preferences, abilities, and commitments of people with lived experience of cancer, as well as the need for physical activity programs to be integrated within the broader health system. CONCLUSION: Strategies to support physical activity engagement for breast cancer should embrace the diversity of those who are diagnosed with cancer as well as the diversity in which physical activity can be achieved.

The effect of time before diagnosis and treatment on colorectal cancer outcomes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days. CONCLUSION: The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis. REGISTRATION: This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

What are the post-treatment information needs of rural cancer survivors in Australia? A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review to critically assess the met and unmet post-treatment information needs of cancer survivors living in rural communities in Australia, to inform the improvement of survivors' transition from treatment in major cities to community care. METHODS: Cumulative index of nursing and allied health literature, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL and Academic Search Ultimate databases and websites of 118 cancer organisations were searched for relevant Australian studies published since 2006. Key search terms included 'rural', 'remote', 'regional', 'cancer', 'survivor*', 'living with', and 'post-treatment'. Data reflecting study source, aims, methodology, and reported information needs were extracted and summarised. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. RESULTS: Fifty-two articles met eligibility criteria. Only six of these specified a primary aim of understanding information needs for rural cancer survivors. Information on prognosis and recovery; managing treatment side effects; healthy lifestyle choices; referrals to support services, and face-to-face and written delivery of information at multiple time points were reported as needed and often lacking for rural cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Co-ordinated, multi-step provision of information to support health and recovery after cancer treatment and beyond is likely to be particularly important for rural cancer survivors given their broad range of needs and reduced access to health care services. Findings provide useful recommendations to facilitate patients' transition home to rural communities after cancer treatment in major cities, however, an increased understanding of the information needs of rural survivors is required to inform the development of guidelines that can be used in clinical practice.

The nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research: A systematic review.

Patient and public involvement can produce high-quality, relevant research that better addresses the needs of patients and their families. This systematic review investigated the nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research. Two patient representatives were involved as members of the review team. Databases (Medline, EMBASE, Emcare, Involve Evidence Library) were searched for English-language studies published 1995-March 2022. Titles/abstracts were screened by two reviewers independently. For eligible studies, data were extracted on study characteristics, patient and public involvement (who, when, how, and impact on research outcomes), and reporting quality using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2-Short Form. Of 4095 articles screened, 58 were eligible. Most research was from the United States (81%) and examined cancer screening or prevention (82%). Community members/organisations/public were the most involved (71%); fewer studies involved patients and/or carers (14%). Over half reported a high-level of involvement (i.e. partner and/or expert involvement), although this declined in later stages of the research cycle, e.g. data analysis. Common positive impacts included improved study design, research methods and recruitment, although most papers (62%) did not describe methods to determine impact. Reporting quality was sub-optimal, largely due to failure to consider challenges. This review found that high-level involvement of patients and the public in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research is feasible and has several advantages. However, improvements are needed to encourage involvement across the research cycle, and in evaluating and reporting its impact.

A systematic review of methodological considerations in time to diagnosis and treatment in colorectal cancer research.

Research focusing on timely diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer is necessary to improve outcomes for people with cancer. Previous attempts to consolidate research on time to diagnosis and treatment have noted varied methodological approaches and quality, limiting the comparability of findings. This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively assess the scope of methodological issues in this field and provide recommendations for future research. Eligible articles had to assess the role of any interval up to treatment, on any outcome in colorectal cancer, in English, with no limits on publication time. Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo). Papers were screened by two independent reviewers using a two-stage process of title and abstract followed by full text review. In total, 130 papers were included and had data extracted on specific methodological and statistical features. Several methodological problems were identified across the evidence base. Common issues included arbitrary categorisation of intervals (n = 107, 83%), no adjustment for potential confounders (n = 65, 50%), and lack of justification for included covariates where there was adjustment (n = 40 of 65 papers that performed an adjusted analysis, 62%). Many articles introduced epidemiological biases such as immortal time bias (n = 37 of 80 papers that used survival as an outcome, 46%) and confounding by indication (n = 73, 56%), as well as other biases arising from inclusion of factors outside of their temporal sequence. However, determination of the full extent of these problems was hampered by insufficient reporting. Recommendations include avoiding artificial categorisation of intervals, ensuring bias has not been introduced due to out-of-sequence use of key events and increased use of theoretical frameworks to detect and reduce bias. The development of reporting guidelines and domain-specific risk of bias tools may aid in ensuring future research can reliably contribute to recommendations regarding optimal timing and strengthen the evidence base.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

BACKGROUND: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage. METHODS: Data were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark. CONCLUSION: This study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Time to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer: A systematic overview of risk factors, interventions and impact on patient outcomes.

Over half of patients with lung cancer are diagnosed at a stage when curative treatment is not possible, suggesting an earlier diagnosis could improve outcomes. This comprehensive overview summarises the evidence on 1) times to diagnosis and treatment, 2) their impact on patient outcomes, 3) risk factors and 4) interventions to reduce time intervals, and 5) key methodological issues in such studies. Eligible articles were relevant systematic or scoping reviews and meta-analyses, searched via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library; published from database inception to 6 August 2020 (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42020203530). A total of 18 systematic and scoping reviews were included. Times to diagnosis and treatment significantly varied and were often longer than recommended in international guidelines. Results regarding the impact of time intervals on survival or tumour stage indicated mixed associations (positive, negative, or no); in each review, however, more studies reported either no or negative association. Risk factors were considerable, categorized at the disease, patient, healthcare provider and system levels. Interventions including fast-access diagnosis programs, patient navigation and multidisciplinary strategies were effective in reducing times to diagnosis and treatment. Methodological issues included large variations in interval definitions and summary measures, lack of addressing an important potential source of bias-the "waiting time paradox"-and few studies of trends over time of these intervals. The current evidence indicates that patients with lung cancer experience diagnosis and treatment delays given guidelines' recommendations, but there are inconsistent findings about the association between times to diagnosis and treatment and patient outcomes. This is partially due to variations in definitions of time intervals, and limitations in analytic approaches that fail to account for a potential waiting time paradox. The identified risk factors and effective interventions demonstrate the potential for improvements in addressing diagnostic and treatment delays, regionally and globally.

Effective integration of caregivers and families as part of the care team for people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers (family or friends of people with cancer) are a group of highly important people who support those diagnosed with cancer to remain at home and out of hospital, but this comes at a significant personal cost. Understanding strategies to support cancer caregivers is critical. OBJECTIVE: This article will present an overview of cancer caregiving and how the caregivers involved can be assisted by general practitioners (GPs). Two key approaches to general practice teams supporting caregivers will be explored: acknowledging and integrating caregivers as part of the care team and providing referrals into services and supports. DISCUSSION: The general practice team is ideally positioned to assist in the support of cancer caregivers. GPs can assist caregivers by acknowledging them as valid and important members of the care team and referring them into existing support programs. These strategies are central to supporting this important, but often forgotten, group of people affected by cancer.

Factors Explaining Socio-Economic Inequalities in Survival from Colon Cancer: A Causal Mediation Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Socio-economic inequalities in colon cancer survival exist in high-income countries, but the reasons are unclear. We assessed the mediating effects of stage at diagnosis, comorbidities, and treatment (surgery and intravenous chemotherapy) on survival from colon cancer. METHODS: We identified 2,203 people aged 15 to 79 years with first primary colon cancer diagnosed in Victoria, Australia, between 2008 and 2011. Colon cancer cases were identified through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR), and clinical information was obtained from hospital records. Deaths till December 31, 2016 (n = 807), were identified from Victorian and national death registries. Socio-economic disadvantage was based on residential address at diagnosis. For stage III disease, we decomposed its total effect into direct and indirect effects using interventional mediation analysis. RESULTS: Socio-economic inequalities in colon cancer survival were not explained by stage and were greater for men than women. For men with stage III disease, there were 161 [95% confidence interval (CI), 67-256] additional deaths per 1,000 cases in the 5 years following diagnosis for the most disadvantaged compared with the least disadvantaged. The indirect effects through comorbidities and intravenous chemotherapy explained 6 (95% CI, -10-21) and 15 (95% CI, -14-44) per 1,000 of these additional deaths, respectively. Surgery did not explain the observed gap in survival. CONCLUSIONS: Disadvantaged men have lower survival from stage III colon cancer that is only modestly explained by having comorbidities or not receiving chemotherapy after surgery. IMPACT: Future studies should investigate the potential mediating role of factors occurring beyond the first year following diagnosis, such as compliance with surveillance for recurrence and supportive care services.

Comparing Pathways to Diagnosis and Treatment for Rural and Urban Patients With Colorectal or Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer patients living in rural areas have poorer outcomes than urban counterparts, but such disparities are not found for breast cancer. Although time to care may contribute to rural-urban disparities, few studies examine patient experiences to understand how and why delays may occur. We compared rural and urban patient experiences of pathways to colorectal or breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 43 patients (49% colorectal; 60% rural, median 7 months postdiagnosis). A framework analysis was applied using the Model of Pathways to Treatment. FINDINGS: Rural and urban patients expressed similar attitudes and reasons for prolonged symptom appraisal and help-seeking triggers. However, some rural patients reported long waiting times to see a Primary Care Practitioner (PCP) and perceived greater gatekeeping to diagnostic services. Patient perceptions of the urgency of PCP referral could impact behavior, such as waiting longer to book appointments. Colorectal cancer patients reported more variable types of symptoms, interpretation, and coping strategies, as well as diverse presentation routes and reduced sense of urgency, compared to breast cancer patients. Waiting time for colonoscopy could be long, particularly in the public health system, but mammograms were quickly arranged. CONCLUSIONS: Pathway variation was more evident by cancer type than residential location. However, access to primary care and diagnostic services for rural patients with colorectal cancer may be important policy targets. Future research should investigate the impact of diagnostic service accessibility on PCP referral behavior to further understand rural-urban disparities.

The pathway to diagnosis and treatment for surgically managed lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Most lung cancer is diagnosed at an advanced stage, resulting in poor survival. This study examined diagnostic pathways for patients with operable lung cancer to identify factors contributing to early diagnosis. METHODS: Surgically treated lung cancer patients (aged ≥40, within 6 months of diagnosis), approached via the population-based Cancer Registry, with their primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists completed cross-sectional surveys assessing symptoms, diagnostic route (symptomatic or 'investigation' of other problem), tests, key event dates and treatment. Time intervals to diagnosis and treatment were determined, and quantile regression examined differences between the two diagnostic routes. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses examined associations between survival and diagnostic route adjusting for stage, sex and age. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-two patients (36% response rate), 107 PCPs and 55 specialists participated. Fifty-eight per cent of patients had a symptomatic diagnostic route reporting an average of 1.6 symptoms, most commonly cough, fatigue or haemoptysis. Symptomatic patients had longer median primary care interval than 'investigation' patients (12 versus 9 days, P < 0.05) and were more likely to report their PCP first-ordered imaging tests. Secondary care interval was shorter for symptomatic (median = 43 days) than investigation (median = 62 days, P < 0.05) patients. However, 56% of all patients waited longer than national recommendations (6 weeks). While survival estimates were better for investigation than symptomatic patients, these differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: Many operable lung cancer patients are diagnosed incidentally, highlighting the difficulty of symptom-based approaches to diagnosing early stage disease. Longer than recommended secondary care interval suggests the need for improvements in care pathways.

Concordance between Optimal Care Pathways and colorectal cancer care: Identifying opportunities to improve quality and reduce disparities.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Care pathway policies for cancer aim to reduce variation and improve the quality of patient care, and there is increasing evidence that adherence to such pathways is associated with improved survival and lower health care costs. Australia is implementing Optimal Care Pathways (OCPs) for several cancers, including colorectal cancer, but studies evaluating how well care conforms to OCP recommendations are rare. This study examined concordance between OCP recommendations and colorectal cancer care prior to policy rollout and disparities for vulnerable populations. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey (2012-2014) of cancer registry-identified colorectal cancer patients aged ≥40 approached within 6 months of diagnosis (n = 433), their general practitioner (GP, n = 290), and specialist (n = 144) in Victoria, Australia. We measured concordance with 10 OCP recommendations and variation by geography, socio-economic, and health insurance status using age- and sex-adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: Use of recommended GP investigations varied from 66% for colonoscopy to 13% for digital rectal exam. Recommended waiting times to receive a colonoscopy, see a specialist after referral, and begin adjuvant chemotherapy were exceeded for around a third of patients. Twenty-eight percent of specialists reported a pretreatment multidisciplinary meeting. Most patients received surgery in a hospital with an intensive care unit (92%) and chemotherapy for high risk disease (84%). In general, care was similar across sociodemographic groups. However, receipt of GP investigations tended to be higher and waiting times longer for rural, low socio-economic, and non-privately insured patients. For example, receiving a colonoscopy within 4 weeks was significantly less likely for rural (51%) than urban (78%) patients (odds ratio = 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.79). CONCLUSION: Prior to implementation, a significant proportion of colorectal cancer patients received care that did not meet OCP recommendations. Low concordance and inequities for rural and disadvantaged populations highlight components of the pathway to target during policy implementation.

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

OBJECTIVE: Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer. DESIGN: Newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary). RESULTS: With the exception of Denmark (-49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012-2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (-11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (-20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (-13), Manitoba (-11), England (-9) and Northern Ireland (-4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%. CONCLUSION: There are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.

Research evidence supports cancer policymaking but is insufficient for change: Findings of key informant interviews from five countries.

Evidence-based policymaking values the use of research in the process of developing, implementing and evaluating policy. However, there is limited research attempting to understand how cancer policymaking occurs and the role of evidence in this process. Our study aimed to provide a deeper understanding of levers and challenges to the development and implementation of large-scale, health service policies or programs in cancer care. Within a realist framework, we conducted a thematic analysis of interviews with 13 key informants from five countries: Australia, Canada, Scotland, Denmark and New Zealand. Results identified a complex array of program mechanisms and contextual factors influencing cancer health-service policymaking. Research evidence was important and could form a rationale for change, such as by identifying unwarranted variation in cancer outcomes across or within countries. However, other factors were equally important in driving policy change, including advocacy, leadership, stakeholder collaboration, program adaptability, clinician and consumer involvement, and the influential role of context. These findings resonate with political science theories and health service reform literature, while offering novel insight into specific factors that influence policymaking in cancer care, namely clinical engagement, consumer input and policy context. Although research evidence supports policymaking, the complex ways in which cancer policies are developed and implemented requires recognition and should be considered when designing new programs and promoting the use of evidence in policymaking.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for patients with colorectal cancer in 10 international jurisdictions; findings from a cross-sectional study from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

OBJECTIVE: International differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival and stage at diagnosis have been reported previously. They may be linked to differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP M4) reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis for patients with CRC and the time intervals from symptom onset until the start of treatment. Data came from patients in 10 jurisdictions across six countries (Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia). DESIGN: Patients with CRC were identified via cancer registries. Data on symptomatic and screened patients were collected; questionnaire data from patients' primary care physicians and specialists, as well as information from treatment records or databases, supplemented patient data from the questionnaires. Routes to diagnosis and the key time intervals were described, as were between-jurisdiction differences in time intervals, using quantile regression. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 14 664 eligible patients with CRC diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were identified, of which 2866 were included in the analyses. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths in days (primary), reported patient symptoms (secondary). RESULTS: The main route to diagnosis for patients was symptomatic presentation and the most commonly reported symptom was 'bleeding/blood in stool'. The median intervals between jurisdictions ranged from: 21 to 49 days (patient); 0 to 12 days (primary care); 27 to 76 days (diagnostic); and 77 to 168 days (total, from first symptom to treatment start). Including screen-detected cases did not significantly alter the overall results. CONCLUSION: ICBP M4 demonstrates important differences in time intervals between 10 jurisdictions internationally. The differences may justify efforts to reduce intervals in some jurisdictions.