Communicating cancer and its treatment to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients with cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the successful strategies of health workers who support and regularly communicate with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about cancer and its treatment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to face or via telephone and audio-recorded with twenty-three health professionals (medical and radiation oncologists, oncology nurses and Aboriginal Health Workers), 5 identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in the Northern Territory and South Australia. When data saturation was reached, thematic analysis using a bottom up, essentialist/realist approach was used. RESULTS: Six themes emerged. (1) Create a safe environment, engender trust and build rapport. This involves considering the physical environment and allowing time in interviews to establish a relationship. (2) Employ specific communication strategies to explain cancer, treatment and its side effects through language choices and employing visual aids such as drawings, metaphors and relatable analogies. (3) Obtain support from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and patient escorts who can assist in communication. (4) Consider culture which involves collective decision making, strong connection to country and community, with cultural obligations and a unique understanding of cancer. (5) Anticipate the contextual complexities of conflicts between Western medicine and Aboriginal culture, practitioner bias and difficulty maintaining contact with patients. (6) Develop personal qualities of good communicators, including being patient-centred, showing respect, patience, empathy and honesty. CONCLUSION: These insights will help foster more positive interactions with the health system and promote optimal outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with cancer.

Dialysis attendance patterns and health care utilisation of Aboriginal patients attending dialysis services in urban, rural and remote locations.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory (NT) suffer the heaviest burden of kidney failure in Australia with most living in remote areas at time of dialysis commencement. As there are few dialysis services in remote areas, many Aboriginal people are required to relocate often permanently, to access treatment. Missing dialysis treatments is not uncommon amongst Aboriginal patients but the relationship between location of dialysis service and dialysis attendance (and subsequent hospital use) has not been explored to date. AIM: To examine the relationships between location of dialysis service, dialysis attendance patterns and downstream health service use (overnight hospital admissions, emergency department presentations) among Aboriginal patients in the NT. METHODS: Using linked hospital and dialysis registry datasets we analysed health service activity for 896 Aboriginal maintenance dialysis patients in the NT between 2008 and 2014. Multivariate linear regression and negative binomial regression analyses explored the associations between dialysis location, dialysis attendance and health service use. RESULTS: We found missing two or more dialysis treatments per month was more likely for Aboriginal people attending urban services and this was associated with a two-fold increase in the rate of hospital admissions and more than three-fold increase in ED presentations. However, we found higher dialysis attendance and lower health service utilisation for those receiving care in rural and remote settings. When adjusted for age, time on dialysis, region, comorbidities and residence pre-treatment, among Aboriginal people from remote areas, those dialysing in remote areas had lower rates of hospitalisations (IRR 0.56; P < 0.001) when compared to those who relocated and dialysed in urban areas. CONCLUSION: There is a clear relationship between the provision and uptake of dialysis services in urban, rural and remote areas in the NT and subsequent broader health service utilisation. Our study suggests that the low dialysis attendance associated with relocation and care in urban models for Aboriginal people can potentially be ameliorated by access to rural and remote models and this warrants a rethinking of service delivery policy. If providers are to deliver effective and equitable services, the full range of intended and unintended consequences of a dialysis location should be incorporated into planning decisions.

Measuring health care experiences that matter to Indigenous people in Australia with cancer: identifying critical gaps in existing tools.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of patients' healthcare experiences is increasingly used as an indicator of quality of care, but there are concerns that existing measures omit information that is meaningful to patients and that results may not be used systematically to inform service improvement. Further, current approaches may be inadequate for some population groups, such as Indigenous people in Australia, whose healthcare experience is impacted by the context of colonisation and discordance between Indigenous understandings of health and the Western biomedical health system. This study aimed to assess the extent to which existing patient experience measures used in Australia collect information about critical aspects of cancer care, as previously identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers. METHODS: A two-stage process was used to examine the adequacy of existing patient experience measures for Indigenous people in Australia: (1) relevant tools and measures were identified and assessed, and four measures selected as suitable comparators; (2) comparators were examined in detail and mapped against topics identified in earlier research as important to Indigenous people with cancer. Gaps in topic coverage in comparators were identified. RESULTS: No comparators completely captured the critical aspects of cancer care identified by Indigenous people affected by cancer and their health care providers. The number of topics 'partially' captured by the four comparators ranged from 4 to 7 out of 9. While most topics were partially covered, the lack of questions around culture and cultural safety was notable. CONCLUSIONS: Existing tools are likely to miss key aspects of Indigenous peoples' experiences of cancer care in Australia. Failure to adequately assess care experiences related to cultural safety may compromise efforts to improve health outcomes. Addressing gaps requires development of experience measures that are strengths-based, reflect an Indigenous worldview and measure aspects of experience relevant to Indigenous people.

Do remote dialysis services really cost more? An economic analysis of hospital and dialysis modality costs associated with dialysis services in urban, rural and remote settings.

BACKGROUND: Rates of end-stage kidney disease in Australia are highest in the Northern Territory (NT), with the burden of disease heaviest in remote areas. However, the high cost of delivering dialysis services in remote areas has resulted in centralisation, requiring many people to relocate for treatment. Patients argue that treatment closer to home improves health outcomes and reduces downstream healthcare use. Existing dialysis cost studies have not compared total health care costs associated with treatment in different locations. OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare, from a payer perspective, the observed health service costs (all cause hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and maintenance dialysis) associated with different dialysis models in urban, rural and remote locations. METHODS: Using cost weights attributed to diagnostic codes in the NT Department of Health's hospital admission data set (2008-2014), we calculated the mean (SD) total annual health service costs by dialysis model for 995 dialysis patients. Generalized linear modeling with bootstrapping tested the marginal cost differences between different explanatory variables to estimate 'best casemix'/'worst casemix' cost scenarios. RESULTS: The mean annual patient hospital expenditure was highest for urban models at $97 928 (SD $21 261) and $43 440 (SD $5 048) and lowest for remote at $19 584 (SD $4 394). When combined with the observed maintenance dialysis costs, expenditure was the highest for urban models at $148 510 (SD $19 774). The incremental cost increase of dialysing in an urban area, compared with a rural area, for a relocated person from a remote area, was $5 648 more and increased further for those from remote and very remote areas to $10 785 and $15 118 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that dialysis treatment in urban areas for relocated people has health and cost implications that maybe greater than the cost of remote service delivery. The study emphasises the importance of considering all health service costs and cost consequences of service delivery models. KEY POINTS FOR DECISION MAKERS: Relocation for dialysis treatment has serious health and economic consequences. Relocated people have low dialysis attendance and high hospital costs in urban areas. While remote dialysis service models are more expensive than urban models, the comparative cost differences are significantly reduced when all health service costs are included. The delivery of equitable and accessible dialysis service models requires a holistic approach that incorporates the needs of the patient; hence dialysis cost studies must consider the full range of cost impacts beyond the dialysis treatments alone.

Most people requiring ongoing treatment for end-stage kidney disease in the Northern Territory (NT) identify as Aboriginal with the majority residing in areas classified as remote or very remote. Unlike other jurisdictions in Australia, haemodialysis in a satellite unit is the most common form of treatment. However, there is a geographic mismatch between demand and service provision, with services centralised in urban areas. Patients and communities have long advocated for services at or closer to home, maintaining that the consequences of relocation and dislocation have far reaching health, psychosocial and economic ramifications. We analysed retrospective hospital data for 995 maintenance dialysis patients, stratified by the model of care they received in urban, rural and remote locations. Using cost weights attributed to diagnosis codes, we costed hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and maintenance dialysis attendances, to provide a mean total health service cost/patient/year for each model of care. We found that urban services were associated with low observed maintenance dialysis and high hospital costs, but the inverse was true for remote and very remote models. Remote models had high maintenance dialysis costs (due to expense of remote service delivery and good dialysis attendance) but low hospital usage and costs. When adjusted for other variables such as age, dialysis vintage and comorbidities, lower total hospital costs were associated with rural and remote service provision. In an environment of escalating demand and constrained budgets, this study underlines the need for policy decisions to consider the full cost consequences of different dialysis service models.

What Matters 2 Adults: a study protocol to develop a new preference-based wellbeing measure with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults (WM2Adults).

BACKGROUND: Understandings of health and wellbeing are culturally bound. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people perceive wellbeing and quality of life (QOL) differently from the Western biomedical models of health underpinning existing QOL instruments. Any instrument to measure the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be culturally appropriate and safe, include relevant dimensions, and be informed by their own values and preferences. Existing QOL instruments do not meet these standards. This study will generate a new preference-based wellbeing measure, WM2Adults, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults, underpinned by their values and preferences. METHODS: A mixed methods approach will be used; we will employ decolonising methodologies, privilege Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices and perspectives, and adopt a strengths-based approach rather than a deficit lens. Yarning Circles will be conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia. A candidate item pool will be developed from these data, on which psychometric analysis and validity testing will be undertaken to develop a descriptive system. Following finalisation of the descriptive system, wellbeing states will be valued using a quantitative preference-based approach (best-worst scaling) with a diverse sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults (n = 1000). A multinomial (conditional) logit framework will be used to analyse responses and generate a scoring algorithm for the new preference-based WM2Adults measure. DISCUSSION: The new wellbeing measure will have wide applicability in assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Results will be disseminated through journals, conferences and policy forums, and will be shared with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, organisations and research participants.

Long-term out of pocket expenditure of people with cancer: comparing health service cost and use for indigenous and non-indigenous people with cancer in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous Australians diagnosed with cancer have poorer survival compared to non-Indigenous Australians. We aim to: 1) identify differences by Indigenous status in out-of-pocket expenditure for the first three-years post-diagnosis; 2) identify differences in the quantity and cost of healthcare services accessed; and 3) estimate the number of additional services required if access was equal between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people with cancer. METHODS: We used CancerCostMod, a model using linked administrative data. The base population was all persons diagnosed with cancer in Queensland, Australia (01JUL2011 to 30JUN2012) (n = 25,553). Each individual record was then linked to their Admitted Patient Data Collection, Emergency Data Information System, Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) records (01JUL2011 to 30JUN2015). We then weighted the population to be representative of the Australian population (approximately 123,900 Australians, 1.7% Indigenous Australians). The patient co-payment charged for each MBS service and PBS prescription was summed for each month from date of diagnosis to 36-months post-diagnosis. We then limited our model to MBS items to identify the quantity and type of healthcare services accessed during the first three-years. RESULTS: On average Indigenous people with cancer had less than half the out-of-pocket expenditure for each 12-month period (0-12 months: mean $401 Indigenous vs $1074 non-Indigenous; 13-24 months: mean $200 vs $484; and 25-36 months: mean $181 vs $441). A stepwise generalised linear model of out-of-pocket expenditure found that Indigenous status was a significant predictor of out of pocket expenditure. We found that Indigenous people with cancer on average accessed 236 services per person, however, this would increase to 309 services per person if Indigenous people had the same rate of service use as non-Indigenous people. CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous people with cancer had lower out-of-pocket expenditure, but also accessed fewer Medicare services compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Indigenous people with cancer were less likely to access specialist attendances, pathology tests, and diagnostic imaging through MBS, and more likely to access primary health care, such as services provided by general practitioners.

Understanding Indigenous Australians' experiences of cancer care: stakeholders' views on what to measure and how to measure it.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer outcomes amongst Indigenous Australians reflect a pattern of reduced access to and engagement with health services. A growing emphasis on patient-centred care has increased efforts to measure patient experiences, but it is unclear whether existing approaches: a) assess the most critical aspects of care that shape the experiences of Indigenous people with cancer; and b) facilitate the engagement and participation of Indigenous people with the measurement of care experiences. METHODS: Two rounds of semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to elicit stakeholders' views on priorities for measuring the cancer care experiences of Indigenous cancer patients and on the acceptability of various methods for capturing such information. Participants included Indigenous people affected by cancer (n = 17), health professionals (n = 28) and individuals in both groups (n = 7). Recruitment occurred through a national web-based network and through four cancer services in urban and regional areas in three jurisdictions across Australia. RESULTS: Several aspects of cancer care were identified as critical in shaping Indigenous patients' experiences. Key themes included: feeling safe in the system; importance of Indigenous staff; barriers to care; the role of family and friends; effective communication and education; and coordination of care and transition between services. Those participants affected by carers' wellbeing and palliative care strongly advocated for the importance of these topics. Participants expressed support for a face-to-face interview with a trusted person as the most appropriate means of collecting cancer care experience information. CONCLUSIONS: While existing experience measurement tools would partially capture some important aspects of care, other critical areas would likely be missed. Appropriate tools and approaches, developed by and with Indigenous people, are urgently needed to determine the extent to which health services are meeting the needs of Indigenous people with cancer, and to identify areas for action to improve these services.

Time to clinical investigation for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Queensland women after a high grade abnormal Pap smear, 2000-2009.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate time to follow-up (clinical investigation) for Indigenous and non-Indigenous women in Queensland after a high grade abnormality (HGA) being detected by Pap smear. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Population-based retrospective cohort analysis of linked data from the Queensland Pap Smear Register (PSR), the Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection, and the Queensland Cancer Registry. 34 980 women aged 20-68 years (including 1592 Indigenous women) with their first HGA Pap smear result recorded on the PSR (index smear) during 2000-2009 were included and followed to the end of 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time from the index smear to clinical investigation (histology test or cancer diagnosis date), censored at 12 months. RESULTS: The proportion of women who had a clinical investigation within 2 months of a HGA finding was lower for Indigenous (34.1%; 95% CI, 31.8-36.4%) than for non-Indigenous women (46.5%; 95% CI, 46.0-47.0%; unadjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.60-0.71). This difference remained after adjusting for place of residence, area-level disadvantage, and age group (adjusted IRR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.81). However, Indigenous women who had not been followed up within 2 months were subsequently more likely to have a clinical investigation than non-Indigenous women (adjusted IRR for 2-4 month interval, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.08-1.36); by 6 months, a similar proportion of Indigenous (62.2%; 95% CI, 59.8-64.6%) and non-Indigenous women (62.8%; 95% CI, 62.2-63.3%) had been followed up. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt follow-up after a HGA Pap smear finding needs to improve for Indigenous women. Nevertheless, slow follow-up is a smaller contributor to their higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality than their lower participation in cervical screening.

Difficult conversations: Australian Indigenous patients' views on kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous Australians suffer a disproportionate burden of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) but are significantly less likely to receive a transplant. This study explores Indigenous ESKD patients' views on transplantation as a treatment option. METHODS: The Improving Access to Kidney Transplants (IMPAKT) research program investigated barriers to kidney transplantation for Indigenous Australians. An interview study, conducted in 2005-2006, elicited illness experience narratives from 146 Indigenous patients, including views on transplant. Interviews were conducted at 26 sites that collectively treat the majority of Indigenous ESKD patients. Key themes were identified via team consensus meetings, providing a flexible framework and focus for continued coding. RESULTS: Four inter-related themes were identified in patient commentary: a very high level (90% of respondents) of positive interest in transplantation; patients experienced a range of communication difficulties and felt uninformed about transplant; family involvement in decision-making was constrained by inadequate information; and patients needed to negotiate cultural and social sensitivities around transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous ESKD patients demonstrated an intense interest in transplantation preferring deceased over living kidney donation. Patients believe transplant is the path most likely to support the re-establishment of their 'normal' family life. Patients described themselves as poorly informed; most had only a rudimentary knowledge of the notion of transplant but no understanding of eligibility criteria, the transplant procedure and associated risks. Patients experienced multiple communication barriers that - taken together - undermine their engagement in treatment decision-making. Families and communities are disempowered because they also lack information to reach a shared understanding of transplantation. Cultural sensitivities associated with transplantation were described but these did not appear to constrain patients in making choices about their own health. Transplant units and local treatment providers should collaborate to develop user-friendly, culturally informed and region-specific patient education programs. Quality improvement cycles should underpin the development of national guidelines for patient education. Noting Indigenous patients' intense interest in transplantation, and nephrologists' concerns regarding poor transplant outcomes, research should prioritise exploring the predictors of transplant outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

Improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with cancer requires a systematic approach to understanding patients' experiences of care.

Indigenous Australians experience a greater burden of cancer than other Australians, but there is little systematic information about their experiences of cancer care. Patient-centred care is increasingly recognised as one of the core domains of quality care, alongside clinical effectiveness and patient safety. Qualitative studies have identified significant issues relating to Indigenous patients' experiences of cancer care, but these data are often insufficient to inform and evaluate health service improvement. We need to establish appropriate methods that will lead to systematic, routinely collected, accurate, population-based data on the experiences of care of Indigenous people with cancer, and determine how best to translate these data into improvements in the delivery of care to this population. Genuine Indigenous leadership and involvement will be necessary, with the whole approach underpinned by the primary aim of improving health outcomes for this population.

The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000-2011).

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Cervical Screening Program, introduced more than 20 years ago, does not record the Indigenous status of screening participants. This article reports the first population-based estimates of participation in cervical screening for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian women. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based study of 1,334,795 female Queensland residents, aged 20 to 69 years, who participated in cervical screening from 2000 to 2011; 26,829 were identified as Indigenous through linkage to hospitalization records. Participation rates were calculated as the number of women screened divided by the average estimated resident population, with adjustments made for hysterectomies, for each 2-, 3-, and 5-year screening period. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were adjusted for age group, place of residence, and socioeconomic disadvantage. RESULTS: In 2010-2011, the 2-year participation rate was 55.7% (95% CI, 55.6%-55.9%) for non-Indigenous women and 33.5% (95% CI, 32.9%-34.1%) for Indigenous women; this represented a decrease from 2000-2001 (57.7% [95% CI, 57.6%-57.9%] and 35.3% [95% CI, 34.5%-36.1%], respectively). The difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous women was greatest for those aged 45 to 49 years. The 3- and 5-year participation rates were higher within both groups, and the absolute differences between the 2 groups were larger. Significant interactions between the Indigenous status and the place of residence and socioeconomic disadvantage highlight that the Indigenous/non-Indigenous differential was evident in all places of residence except for very remote areas (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02) and was greatest in the most affluent areas (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.24-0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous Australian women participate less than non-Indigenous women, and this gap has not closed. These results provide important benchmarks for the new Australian cervical screening program commencing in 2017, which will provide opportunities to reduce inequities for Indigenous women and address longstanding data deficiencies in the collection of the Indigenous status. Cancer 2016;122:1560-9. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

The health-related quality of life of Indigenous populations: a global systematic review.

PURPOSE: Indigenous conceptions of health have been shown to differ from that of their non-Indigenous counterparts. As a result, there remains uncertainty over the appropriateness and value of using existing health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments in Indigenous communities. The objective of this review was to identify studies that either measure the HRQoL of an Indigenous population or validated a measure used to elicit the HRQoL in an Indigenous population. METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to (1) investigate the extent to which HRQoL instruments are used in Indigenous populations; (2) to identify which instruments have been validated in which populations; and (3) to identify which instruments have been tailored for use with Indigenous populations. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included in the review. Only three of the 41 studies utilised Indigenous-specific instruments. The remainder (38 studies) utilised generic population or disease-specific instruments. Four studies found specific HRQoL instruments to be valid in these populations and 32 estimated the HRQoL of an Indigenous population. The limited examples of Indigenous-specific instruments highlighted the potential importance to the HRQoL of these populations of domains that lie outside of traditional measures including social and community domains as well as domains relating to culture, diet and land use on top of more traditional HRQoL domains. CONCLUSION: Ensuring that the HRQoL of Indigenous populations is being appropriately measured is vital to prioritising available resources to the most effective interventions. HRQoL instruments present an opportunity to directly elicit and incorporate Indigenous preferences and conceptions of health into these decisions. Further work is required in the field to ensure that this potential is realised.

Psychometric properties of an Australian supportive care needs assessment tool for Indigenous patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are significant disparities in cancer outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Identifying the unmet supportive care needs of Indigenous Australians with cancer is imperative to improve their cancer care. The purpose of the current study was to test the psychometric properties of a supportive cancer care needs assessment tool for Indigenous people (SCNAT-IP) with cancer. METHODS: The SCNAT-IP was administered to 248 Indigenous Australians diagnosed with a range of cancer types and stages, and who received treatment in 1 of 4 Queensland hospitals. All 39 items were assessed for ceiling and floor effects and were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis to determine construct validity. Identified factors were assessed for internal consistency and convergent validity to validated psychosocial tools. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 4-factor structure (physical and psychological, hospital care, information and communication, and practical and cultural needs) explaining 51% of the variance. Internal consistency of the 4 subscales was good, with Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients ranging from .70 to .89. Convergent validity was supported by significant correlations between the SCNAT-IP with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.60; P<.001) and the Cancer Worry Chart (r = 0.58; P<.001) and a moderately strong negative correlation with the Assessment of Quality of Life questionnaire (r = -0.56; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide initial support for the SCNAT-IP, a measure of multiple supportive care needs domains specific to Indigenous Australian patients with cancer undergoing treatment.

Survival of Indigenous Australians receiving renal replacement therapy: closing the gap?

OBJECTIVES: To compare mortality rates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians commencing renal replacement therapy (RRT) over time and by categories of remoteness of place of residence. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational cohort study of Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) data on Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians registered with ANZDATA who commenced RRT from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 2009 and were followed until 31 December 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five-year all-cause mortality for Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients in three cohorts (1995-1999, 2000-2004 and 2005-2009) and five remoteness (of place of residence) categories. RESULTS: Indigenous patients were younger, more likely to have diabetes, be referred late and be from a more remote area than non-Indigenous patients. Age and comorbid conditions increased with successive cohorts for both groups. Unadjusted analysis (using the log-rank test) showed an increased risk of death for Indigenous patients in the 1995-1999 (P = 0.02) and 2000-2004 (P = 0.03) cohorts, but not for the 2005-2009 cohort (P = 0.7). However, a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, late referral and comorbid conditions [diabetes, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, lung disease], and body mass index < 18.5 kg/m(2) and > 30 kg/m(2)) showed the following Indigenous:non-Indigenous hazard ratios (with 95% CIs) for major capital cities: 1995-1999, 1.47 (1.21-1.79); 2000-2004, 1.35 (1.12-1.63); and 2005-2009, 1.37 (1.14-1.66). CONCLUSIONS: Although unadjusted analysis suggests that the survival gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients receiving RRT has closed, there remains a significant disparity in survival after adjusting for the variables considered in our study.

Chronic kidney disease in the Top End of the Northern Territory of Australia, 2002-2011: a retrospective cohort study using existing laboratory data.

BACKGROUND: The Northern Territory of Australia has a very high incidence of treated end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), largely confined to Indigenous Australians living in remote, under-resourced areas. Surveillance of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is still in its infancy in Australia. We estimate the prevalence and rate of progression of measured CKD across a region using inexpensive readily available laboratory information. METHODS: Using a retrospective de-identified extraction of all records with a serum creatinine or urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio from the single largest ambulatory pathology provider to the Top End of the Northern Territory of Australia between 1st February 2002 and 31st December 2011, the yearly total and age-specific prevalence of measured microalbuminuria, overt albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), and the prevalence of progressive CKD, were calculated. RESULTS: There was a steady increase in the proportion tested across all health districts in the region, more prominent in non-urban districts. In 2009, the regional adult prevalence of measured microalbuminuria and overt albuminuria was as high as 8.1 %, overt albuminuria alone up to 3.0 % and eGFR < 60 up to 2.3 %. Rates of progressive disease were extremely high, particularly for those with albuminuria (53.1-100 % for those with urinary albumin-creatinine ratio > 300 mg/mmol). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of testing, particularly in districts of high measured prevalence of markers of CKD, are encouraging. However, extremely high rates of progressive CKD are troubling. Further describing the outcomes of CKD in this population would require analysis of linked datasets.

Cancer outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in rural and remote areas.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between residential remoteness and stage of cancer at diagnosis, treatment uptake, and survival within the Australian Indigenous population. DESIGN: Systematic review and matched retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Systematic review: published papers that included a comparison of cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment uptake, mortality and/or survival for Indigenous people across remoteness categories were identified (n = 181). Fifteen papers (13 studies) were included in the review. Original analyses: new analyses were conducted using data from the Queensland Indigenous Cancer Study (QICS) comparing cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment uptake, and survival for Indigenous cancer patients living in rural/remote areas (n = 627, 66%) and urban areas (n = 329, 34%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Systematic review: Papers were included if there were related to stage of disease at diagnosis, treatment, mortality and survival of cancer. Restrictions were not placed on the outcome measures reported (e.g. standardised mortality ratios versus crude mortality rates). Original analyses: Odds ratios (OR, 95%CI) were used to compare stage of disease and treatment uptake between the two remoteness groups. Treatment uptake (treated/not treated) was analysed using logistic regression analysis. Survival was analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression. The final multivariate models included stage of cancer at diagnosis and area-level socioeconomic status (SEIFA). RESULTS: Existing evidence of variation in cancer outcomes for Indigenous people in remote compared with metropolitan areas is limited. While no previous studies have reported on differences in cancer stage and treatment uptake by remoteness within the Indigenous population, the available evidence suggests Indigenous cancer patients are less likely to survive their cancer the further they live from urban centres. New analysis of QICS data indicates that Indigenous cancer patients in rural/remote Queensland were less likely to be diagnosed with localised disease and less likely to receive treatment for their cancer compared to their urban counterparts. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to fully understand geographic differentials in cancer outcomes within the Indigenous population. Knowing how geographical location interacts with Indigenous status can help to identify ways of improving cancer outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

Cancer survival for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: a national study of survival rates and excess mortality.

BACKGROUND: National cancer survival statistics are available for the total Australian population but not Indigenous Australians, although their cancer mortality rates are known to be higher than those of other Australians. We aimed to validate analysis methods and report cancer survival rates for Indigenous Australians as the basis for regular national reporting. METHODS: We used national cancer registrations data to calculate all-cancer and site-specific relative survival for Indigenous Australians (compared with non-Indigenous Australians) diagnosed in 2001-2005. Because of limited availability of Indigenous life tables, we validated and used cause-specific survival (rather than relative survival) for proportional hazards regression to analyze time trends and regional variation in all-cancer survival between 1991 and 2005. RESULTS: Survival was lower for Indigenous than non-Indigenous Australians for all cancers combined and for many cancer sites. The excess mortality of Indigenous people with cancer was restricted to the first three years after diagnosis, and greatest in the first year. Survival was lower for rural and remote than urban residents; this disparity was much greater for Indigenous people. Survival improved between 1991 and 2005 for non-Indigenous people (mortality decreased by 28%), but to a much lesser extent for Indigenous people (11%) and only for those in remote areas; cancer survival did not improve for urban Indigenous residents. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survival is lower for Indigenous than other Australians, for all cancers combined and many individual cancer sites, although more accurate recording of Indigenous status by cancer registers is required before the extent of this disadvantage can be known with certainty. Cancer care for Indigenous Australians needs to be considerably improved; cancer diagnosis, treatment, and support services need to be redesigned specifically to be accessible and acceptable to Indigenous people.

Barriers and facilitators to adherence to Optimal Care Pathways for diagnosis and treatment of cancer for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

BACKGROUND: The Optimal Care Pathways (OCP) are a framework to promote high-quality and integrated cancer care for all Australians, from prevention through to end-of-life-care. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience disproportionate cancer incidence and mortality, but little research has addressed whether cancer care for Aboriginal people meets the standards prescribed by the OCPs. This study aims to consider barriers and facilitators to quality cancer care for Aboriginal people. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 health professionals who deliver care to Aboriginal people with cancer in primary care and hospital settings in New South Wales, Australia. Health professionals included Aboriginal Health Workers, nurses, general practitioners, and community workers. Interviews were conducted in 2019-2020 and explored participant perspectives of barriers and facilitators of optimal cancer care, particularly related to prevention, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment for Aboriginal people. Data were qualitatively analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: In general, participants perceived Aboriginal patients to have good access to preventive care. In terms of early detection and diagnosis, access to primary care, pathology, radiology, and some specialists (e.g. respiratory physicians) was seen as optimal. However, access to hospital-based gastroenterologists for colonoscopy was perceived to be poor due to long wait times. Access to optimal care for cancer treatment was perceived to be hindered due to the lack of bulk-billing for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cardiothoracic surgery. Other barriers to care identified by participants included unclear referral pathways, poor communication between patient and the treating team, and a lack of timely provision of discharge summaries. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitators of optimal care during treatment and survivorship included: the Integrated Team Care and Close the Gap programs, and presence of key health workers to help patients navigate the health system. The major barriers to quality cancer care for Aboriginal people appeared to be to specialist and procedural access, demonstrating that the 'Inverse Care' law applied in reducing access for populations at higher risk of cancer.