Can You Hear Us Now? Equity in Global Advocacy for Palliative Care.

Evidence-based advocacy underpins the sustainable delivery of quality, publicly guaranteed, and universally available palliative care. More than 60 million people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have no or extremely limited access to either palliative care services or essential palliative care medicines (e.g., opioids) on the World Health Organization Model List. Indeed, only 12% of the global palliative care need is currently being met. Palliative care advocacy works to bring this global public health inequity to light. Despite their expertise, palliative care practitioners in LMICs are rarely invited to health policymaking tables - even in their own countries - and are underrepresented in the academic literature produced largely in the high-income world. In this paper, palliative care experts from Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Sudan, Uganda, and Zambia affiliated with the International Association for Hospice & Palliative Care Advocacy Focal Point Program articulate the urgent need for evidence-based advocacy, focusing on significant barriers such as urban/rural divides, cancer-centeredness, service delivery gaps, opioid formulary limitations, public policy, and education deficits. Their advocacy is situated in the context of an emerging global health narrative that stipulates palliative care provision as an ethical obligation of all health systems. To support advocacy efforts, palliative care evaluation and indicator data should assess the extent to which LMIC practitioners lead and participate in global and regional advocacy. This goal entails investment in transnational advocacy initiatives, research investments in palliative care access and cost-effective models in LMICs, and capacity building for a global community of practice to capture the attention of policymakers at all levels of health system governance.

Symptom Levels in Care-Seeking Bangladeshi and Nepalese Adults With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Three-fourths of patients with advanced cancer are reported to suffer from pain. A primary barrier to provision of adequate symptom treatment is failure to appreciate the intensity of the symptoms patients are experiencing. Because data on Bangladeshi and Nepalese patients' perceptions of their symptomatic status are limited, we sought such information using a cell phone questionnaire. METHODS: At tertiary care centers in Dhaka and Kathmandu, we recruited 640 and 383 adult patients, respectively, with incurable malignancy presenting for outpatient visits and instructed them for that single visit on one-time completion of a cell phone platform 15-item survey of questions about common cancer-associated symptoms and their magnitudes using Likert scales of 0 to 10. The questions were taken from the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and the Brief Pain Inventory instruments. RESULTS: All but two Bangladeshi patients recruited agreed to study participation. Two-thirds of Bangladeshi patients reported usual pain levels ≥ 5, and 50% of Nepalese patients reported usual pain levels ≥ 4 (population differences significant at P < .001). CONCLUSION: Bangladeshi and Nepalese adults with advanced cancer are comfortable with cell phone questionnaires about their symptoms and report high levels of pain. Greater attention to the suffering of these patients is warranted.