Global oncology research and training at US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centres: results of the 2021 Global Oncology Survey.

Global oncology research and training are crucial to address the growing global burden of cancer, which largely and increasingly occurs in low-income and middle-income countries. To better understand global oncology activities at the 71 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centres, the US NCI Centre for Global Health regularly surveys cancer centre directors, global oncology leads, and principal investigators in 36 US states and the District of Columbia. The survey results complement internal and publicly available data about global oncology research funded directly by the US National Institutes of Health to provide a comprehensive catalogue of global oncology research, training, and activities led by NCI-designated cancer centres. 91% (61 of 67) of responding cancer centres reported global oncology activities not directly funded by the National Institutes of Health. The survey results indicate that global oncology is an important priority at cancer centres and provide a valuable resource for these centres, researchers, collaborators, trainees, and the NCI and other funders.

Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Importance: Scientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications. Objective: To assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Author institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: In this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.

How COVID-19 exposed pre-existing roadblocks for cancer control in Africa: strategies, lessons and recommendations from the 2019-2020 Africa Cancer Research and Control ECHO.

Background: The COVID-19 related mitigation measures adversely affected various cancer control activities in Africa, with cancer prevention and screening activities amongst the most significantly impacted. When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the Africa Cancer Research and Control ECHO utilised their virtual platform to share experiences and knowledge of how to continue cancer service delivery during the pandemic. This analysis describes the evolved strategies, dilemmas, and recommendations to strengthen the health systems for cancer control in Africa. Methods: Eleven 1-hour-long sessions about the then newly emerging coronavirus infection and its impact on cancer control in Africa were held from April 2020 to August 2020, using Zoom®. An average of 39 participants attended the sessions including scientists, clinicians, policymakers and global partners. Sessions were analysed thematically. Results: Most strategies to maintain cancer services during the COVID-19 pandemic centred around cancer treatment, with few strategies on maintaining cancer prevention services, early detection, palliative care and research services. The most mentioned challenge during the pandemic was fear of exposure to COVID-19 infection at the health facility during diagnosis, treatment or follow-up for cancer care. Other challenges were disruptions to service delivery, inaccessibility of cancer treatment, disruption of research activities and a lack of psychosocial support for COVID-19 related fear/anxiety. Significantly, this analysis shows that the COVID-19 related mitigation measures exacerbated existing predicaments in Africa, such as inadequate attention to cancer prevention strategies, psychosocial and palliative services and cancer research. The Africa Cancer ECHO recommends African countries to leverage the infrastructure developed in response to COVID-19 pandemic to strengthen the health system along the entire cancer control continuum. This calls for urgent action to develop and implement evidence-based frameworks and comprehensive National Cancer Control Plans that will withstand any future disruptions.

An analysis of survivorship care strategies in national cancer control plans in Africa.

PURPOSE: In 2017, the World Health Organization urged member states to develop and implement national cancer control plans (NCCPs) and to anticipate and promote cancer survivor follow-up care, which is a critical yet often overlooked component of NCCPs. This study aims to examine the inclusion of cancer survivorship-related strategies and objectives in NCCPs of African countries. METHODS: Independent reviewers extracted strategies, objectives, and associated indicators related to survivorship care from 21 current or recently expired NCCPs in African countries. Building on a similar analysis of the US state cancer control plans, reviewers categorized these strategies according to an adapted version of the ten recommendations for comprehensive survivorship care detailed in the 2006 National Academy of Medicine report. RESULTS: A total of 202 survivorship-related strategies were identified, with all NCCPs including between 1 and 23 references to survivorship. Eighty-three (41%) strategies were linked to measurable indicators, and 128 (63%) of the survivorship-related strategies were explicitly focused on palliative care. The most frequent domains referenced were models of coordinated care (65 strategies), healthcare professional capacity (45), and developing and utilizing evidence-based guidelines (23). The least-referenced domains were survivorship care plans (4) and adequate and affordable health insurance (0). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that survivorship objectives and strategies should extend beyond palliative care to encompass all aspects of survivorship and should include indicators to measure progress. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Stakeholders can use this baseline analysis to identify and address gaps in survivorship care at the national policy level.

Complex Interventions Deserve Complex Evaluations: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Evaluation of a Preventive Personalized Medicine Intervention.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the largest cause of disability and death globally. The human and financial costs of NCDs have raised questions of sustainability for many health systems. Personalized, preventive health interventions are an innovative way to address NCDs, but it is difficult to measure their effectiveness using standard evaluation methods. This article describes a novel approach to evaluation by coupling transdisciplinary methods with realist theory to design and pilot a health outcomes evaluation for a personalized medicine approach to NCD prevention in Istanbul, Turkey. Research and practice stakeholders contributed to study design, research questions, validation of results, and recommendations through interactive workshops, consistent dialogue, and reflection. They co-created a customized outcome measurement framework and recommendations that promote sustainability and continuous improvement of future evaluations. The participatory methods helped resolve the dichotomy between patient, practitioner, and researcher focus in the evaluation and improved stakeholders' data literacy. This research contributes to the body of evidence advocating for the use of non-standard methods such as transdisciplinary research to evaluate the effectiveness of complex interventions. The results of the pilot evaluation are also presented as a case study.