Carrying on with life as a lung cancer survivor: a qualitative study of Australian survivors' employment, finances, relationships, and healthcare experiences.

Background: With novel therapies, more individuals are living longer with lung cancer (LC). This study aimed to understand the impacts of LC on life domains such as employment, finances, relationships, and healthcare needs. Methods: Individuals 18+, diagnosed with LC, 6-24 months post-treatment were recruited through an Australian LC cohort study (Embedding Research and Evidence in Cancer Healthcare-EnRICH). Demographic, clinical, quality-of-life and distress data were obtained through the EnRICH study database. Participants completed telephone interviews. Qualitative data were analysed via Framework methods. Results: Twenty interviews (10 females) were conducted. Most participants were diagnosed with advanced LC (Stage III =8, Stage IV =6), and were on average 17 (range, 10-24) months post-diagnosis. Four themes related to "carrying on with life" as a LC survivor were identified: (I) the winding path back to work: those working pre-diagnosis discussed challenges of maintaining/returning to employment, and the meaning and satisfaction derived from work. (II) Vulnerability versus protection: managing the financial impacts of LC: wide variations in financial impacts, some described lost income and high healthcare expenses, others felt financially protected. (III) Connection and loneliness: navigating relationships as a survivor: some experienced lost friendships due to their diagnosis, others noted more meaningful connections. (IV) Still under the umbrella: healthcare during survivorship: participants noted the importance of ongoing oncology team connection and the vital role of cancer care coordinators. Conclusions: Many individuals living with LC want to "carry on" with life. Participants spoke of challenges and opportunities across life domains of relationships, work, and finances, and noted the importance of continued specialist healthcare throughout survivorship.

Genomic multidisciplinary teams: A model for navigating genetic mainstreaming and precision medicine.

AIM: Recent rapid advances in genomics are revolutionising patient diagnosis and management of genetic conditions. However, this has led to many challenges in service provision, education and upskilling requirements for non-genetics health-care professionals and remuneration for genomic testing. In Australia, Medicare funding with a Paediatric genomic testing item for patients with intellectual disability or syndromic features has attempted to address this latter issue. The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network - Westmead (SCHN-W) Clinical Genetics Department established Paediatric and Neurology genomic multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to address the Medicare-specified requirement for discussion with clinical genetics, and increasing genomic testing advice requests. METHODS: This SCHN-W genomic MDT was evaluated with two implementation science frameworks - the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and GMIR - Genomic Medicine Integrative Research frameworks. Data from June 2020 to July 2022 were synthesised and evaluated, as well as process mapping of the MDT service. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients were discussed in 34 MDT meetings, facilitating 148 genomic tests, of which 73 were Medicare eligible. This was equivalent to 26% of SCHN-W genetics outpatient activity, and 13% of all Medicare-funded paediatric genomic testing in NSW. 39% of patients received a genetic diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The genomic MDT facilitated increased genomic testing at a tertiary paediatric centre and is an effective model for mainstreaming and facilitating precision medicine. However, significant implementation issues were identified including cost and sustainability, as well as the high level of resourcing that will be required to scale up this approach to other areas of medicine.

Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.

AIM: To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs. BACKGROUND: Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type. FINDINGS: Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.

Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice. AIM: To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs. METHOD: Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework. RESULTS: Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important. CONCLUSION: GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS: Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm. CONCLUSIONS: Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants.

INTRODUCTION: In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging. CONCLUSION: Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.

The early impacts of primary HPV cervical screening implementation in Australia on the pathology sector: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The transition of Australia's National Cervical Screening Program from cytology to a molecular test for human papillomavirus (HPV) (locally referred to as the 'Renewal'), including a longer five-year interval and older age at commencement, significantly impacted all sectors of program delivery. The Renewal had major implications for the roles and requirements of pathology laboratories providing services for the Program. This study aimed to understand the early impacts of the Renewal and its implementation on the pathology sector. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (N = 49) involved in the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study (STORIES), 11-20 months after the program transition. A subset of interviews (N = 24) that discussed the pathology sector were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes were identified: implementation enablers, challenges, missed opportunities, and possible improvements. Participants believed that the decision to transition to primary HPV screening was highly acceptable and evidence-based, but faced challenges due to impacts on laboratory infrastructure, resources, staffing, and finances. These challenges were compounded by unfamiliarity with new information technology (IT) systems and the new National Cancer Screening Register ('Register') not being fully functional by the date of the program transition. The limited availability of self-collection and lack of standardised fields in pathology forms were identified as missed opportunities to improve equity in the Program. To improve implementation processes, participants suggested increased pathology sector involvement in planning was needed, along with more timely and transparent communication from the Government, and clearer clinical management guidelines. CONCLUSION: The transition to primary HPV screening had a significant and multifaceted impact on the Australian pathology sector reflecting the magnitude and complexity of the Renewal. Strategies to support the pathology sector through effective change management, clear, timely, and transparent communication, as well as adequate funding sources will be critical for other countries planning to transition cervical screening programs.

Pain and its interference with daily living in relation to cancer: a comparative population-based study of 16,053 cancer survivors and 106,345 people without cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common, debilitating, and feared symptom, including among cancer survivors. However, large-scale population-based evidence on pain and its impact in cancer survivors is limited. We quantified the prevalence of pain in community-dwelling people with and without cancer, and its relation to physical functioning, psychological distress, and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Questionnaire data from participants in the 45 and Up Study (Wave 2, n = 122,398, 2012-2015, mean age = 60.8 years), an Australian population-based cohort study, were linked to cancer registration data to ascertain prior cancer diagnoses. Modified Poisson regression estimated age- and sex-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for bodily pain and pain sufficient to interfere with daily activities (high-impact pain) in people with versus without cancer, for 13 cancer types, overall and according to clinical, personal, and health characteristics. The relation of high-impact pain to physical and mental health outcomes was quantified in people with and without cancer. RESULTS: Overall, 34.9% (5,436/15,570) of cancer survivors and 31.3% (32,471/103,604) of participants without cancer reported bodily pain (PR = 1.07 [95% CI = 1.05-1.10]), and 15.9% (2,468/15,550) versus 13.1% (13,573/103,623), respectively, reported high-impact pain (PR = 1.13 [1.09-1.18]). Pain was greater with more recent cancer diagnosis, more advanced disease, and recent cancer treatment. High-impact pain varied by cancer type; compared to cancer-free participants, PRs were: 2.23 (1.71-2.90) for multiple myeloma; 1.87 (1.53-2.29) for lung cancer; 1.06 (0.98-1.16) for breast cancer; 1.05 (0.94-1.17) for colorectal cancer; 1.04 (0.96-1.13) for prostate cancer; and 1.02 (0.92-1.12) for melanoma. Regardless of cancer diagnosis, high-impact pain was strongly related to impaired physical functioning, psychological distress, and reduced QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is common, interfering with daily life in around one-in-eight older community-dwelling participants. Pain was elevated overall in cancer survivors, particularly for certain cancer types, around diagnosis and treatment, and with advanced disease. However, pain was comparable to population levels for many common cancers, including breast, prostate and colorectal cancer, and melanoma.

Invitation methods for Indigenous New Zealand Maori in lung cancer screening: Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Lung cancer screening can significantly reduce mortality from lung cancer. Further evidence about how to optimize lung cancer screening for specific populations, including Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ)'s Indigenous Maori (who experience disproportionately higher rates of lung cancer), is needed to ensure it is equitable. This community-based, pragmatic cluster randomized trial aims to determine whether a lung cancer screening invitation from a patient's primary care physician, compared to from a centralized screening service, will optimize screening uptake for Maori. Participating primary care practices (clinics) in Auckland, Aotearoa NZ will be randomized to either the primary care-led or centralized service for delivery of the screening invitation. Clinic patients who meet the following criteria will be eligible: Maori; aged 55-74 years; enrolled in participating clinics in the region; ever-smokers; and have at least a 2% risk of developing lung cancer within six years (determined using the PLCOM2012 risk prediction model). Eligible patients who respond positively to the invitation will undertake shared decision-making with a nurse about undergoing a low dose CT scan (LDCT) and an assessment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The primary outcomes are: 1) the proportion of eligible population who complete a risk assessment and 2) the proportion of people eligible for a CT scan who complete the CT scan. Secondary outcomes include evaluating the contextual factors needed to inform the screening process, such as including assessment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). We will also use the RE-AIM framework to evaluate specific implementation factors. This study is a world-first, Indigenous-led lung cancer screening trial for Maori participants. The study will provide policy-relevant information on a key policy parameter, invitation method. In addition, the trial includes a nested analysis of COPD in the screened Indigenous population, and it provides baseline (T0 screen round) data using RE-AIM implementation outcomes.

Application of a revised model for coping with advanced cancer to qualitatively explore lung cancer survivors' experiences of ongoing physical effects, novel treatments, uncertainty, and coping.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer remains underrepresented in cancer survivorship research. This study aimed to understand survivors' physical/psychological challenges, experiences of immunotherapy (IO) and targeted therapy (TT), and psychological adjustment through application of the Roberts et al. (2017) advanced cancer adaptation of Folkman and Greer's appraisal and coping model. METHODS: Adults 6-24 months post-initial treatment completion were recruited via an Australian cohort study. Participant demographic, clinical, quality of life, and distress data were obtained through the cohort database. Qualitative interviews were conducted and analyzed using Framework methods. Roberts et al. (2017)'s model informed data interpretation and presentation. RESULTS: Twenty interviews were conducted (10 females; average age 69 years). Participants' diagnostic stages varied (stage I = 2, stage II = 4, stage III = 8, stage IV = 6); most had received IO/TT (n = 14) and were on average 17 months (range 10-24) post-diagnosis. Three themes were identified and mapped to the Roberts' framework: (1) Ongoing illness events: most participants reported functioning well despite ongoing physical effects. Those on IO/TT reported side effects; some were unexpected/serious. (2) Adjusting to life with lung cancer: most expressed hope for the future while simultaneously preparing for disease progression. Those receiving IO/TT experienced uncertainty given limited survival information. (3) Learning to live with lung cancer: participants described emotion, problem, and meaning based on coping strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may guide development of supportive care resources/interventions focused on uncertainty, IO/TT communication and decision-making, and coping. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Many people with lung cancer are living well with their ongoing illness. Despite challenges, many survivors are adapting to issues as they arise and are maintaining a sense of hope and optimism.

An evidence-base for the implementation of hospital-based palliative care programs in routine cancer practice: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention. AIM: To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration. DESIGN: Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092). DATA SOURCES: Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour. RESULTS: Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting.

Overcoming challenges in conducting systematic reviews in implementation science: a methods commentary.

Consolidation of the literature using systematic reviews is a critical way to advance a discipline and support evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. However, unique challenges exist that impact the conduct of systematic reviews in implementation science. In this commentary, we reflect on our combined experience to describe five key challenges unique to systematic reviews of primary implementation research. These challenges include (1) descriptors used in implementation science publications, (2) distinction between evidence-based interventions and implementation strategies, (3) assessment of external validity, (4) synthesis of implementation studies with substantial clinical and methodological diversity, and (5) variability in defining implementation 'success'. We outline possible solutions and highlight resources that can be used by authors of primary implementation research, as well as systematic review and editorial teams, to overcome the identified challenges and optimise the utility of future systematic reviews in implementation science.

A mainstreaming oncogenomics model: improving the identification of Lynch syndrome.

Introduction: "Mainstreaming" is a proposed strategy to integrate genomic testing into oncology. The aim of this paper is to develop a mainstreaming oncogenomics model by identifying health system interventions and implementation strategies for mainstreaming Lynch syndrome genomic testing. Methods: A rigorous theoretical approach inclusive of conducting a systematic review and qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Theory-informed implementation data were mapped to the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework to generate potential strategies. Results: The systematic review identified a lack of theory-guided health system interventions and evaluation for Lynch syndrome and other mainstreaming programs. The qualitative study phase included 22 participants from 12 health organizations. The quantitative Lynch syndrome survey included 198 responses: 26% and 66% from genetic and oncology health professionals, respectively. Studies identified the relative advantage and clinical utility of mainstreaming to improve genetic test access and to streamline care, and adaptation of current processes was recognized for results delivery and follow-up. Barriers identified included funding, infrastructure and resources, and the need for process and role delineation. The interventions to overcome barriers were as follows: embedded mainstream genetic counselors, electronic medical record genetic test ordering, results tracking, and mainstreaming education resources. Implementation evidence was connected through the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework resulting in a mainstreaming oncogenomics model. Discussion: The proposed mainstreaming oncogenomics model acts as a complex intervention. It features an adaptable suite of implementation strategies to inform Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer service delivery. Implementation and evaluation of the model are required in future research.

"Now is the time for institutions to be investing in growing exercise programs as part of standard of care": a multiple case study examining the implementation of exercise oncology interventions.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science seeks to systematically identify determinants, strategies, and outcomes within a causal pathway to help explain successful implementation. This process is applied to evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to improve their adoption, implementation, and sustainment. However, this method has not been applied to exercise oncology services, meaning we lack knowledge about implementing exercise EBIs in routine practice. This study aimed to develop causal pathways from the determinants, strategies (including mechanism of change), and implementation outcomes to explain exercise EBIs implementation in routine cancer care. METHODS: A multiple-case study was conducted across three healthcare sites in Australia. Sites selected had implemented exercise within routine care for people diagnosed with cancer and sustained the delivery of services for at least 12 months. Four data sources informed the study: semi-structured interviews with staff, document reviews, observations, and the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (survey). Framework analysis was applied to understand the findings. The Implementation Research Logic Model was used to identify commonalities in implementation across sites and develop causal pathways. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighteen data points informed our findings. Across sites, 18 determinants and 22 implementation strategies were consistent. Sixteen determinants and 24 implementation strategies differed across sites and results of implementation outcomes varied. We identified 11 common pathways that when combined, help explain implementation processes. The mechanisms of implementation strategies operating within the pathways included (1) knowledge, (2) skills, (3) secure resources, (4) optimism, and (5) simplified decision-making processes associated with exercise; (6) relationships (social and professional) and support for the workforce; (7) reinforcing positive outcomes; (8) capability to action plan through evaluations and (9) interactive learning; (10) aligned goals between the organisation and the EBI; and (11) consumer-responsiveness. CONCLUSION: This study developed causal pathways that explain the how and why of successful implementation of exercise EBIs in cancer care. These findings can support future planning and optimisation activities by creating more opportunities for people with cancer to access evidence-based exercise oncology services. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Understanding how to implement exercise within routine cancer care successfully is important so cancer survivors can experience the benefits of exercise.

Implementation of Australia's primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening program: The STakeholders Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study.

In this study, we aimed to document stakeholders' experiences of implementing Australia's renewed National Cervical Screening Program. In December 2017, the program changed from 2nd yearly cytology for 20-69 year olds to 5 yearly human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for women 25-74 years. We undertook semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including government, program administrators, register staff, clinicians and health care workers, non-government organisations, professional bodies, and pathology laboratories from across Australia between Nov 2018 - Aug 2019. Response rate to emailed invitations was 49/85 (58%). We used Proctor et al's (2011) implementation outcomes framework to guide our questions and thematic analysis. We found that stakeholders were evenly divided over whether implementation was successful. There was strong support for change, but concern over aspects of the implementation. There was some frustration related to the delayed start, timeliness of communication and education, shortcomings in change management, lack of inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in planning and implementation, failure to make self-collection widely available, and delays in the National Cancer Screening Register. Barriers centred around a perceived failure to appreciate the enormity of the change and register build, and consequent failure to resource, project manage and communicate effectively. Facilitators included the good will and dedication of stakeholders, strong evidence base for change and the support of jurisdictions during the delay. We documented substantial implementation challenges, offering learnings for other countries transitioning to HPV screening. Sufficient planning, significant and transparent engagement and communication with stakeholders, and change management are critical.

"What do I think about implementing lung cancer screening? It all depends on how." Acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening in Australia: The view of key stakeholders about health system factors.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. Although international trials demonstrate that targeted screening using low dose computed tomography (LDCT) significantly reduces lung cancer mortality, implementation of screening in the high-risk population presents complex health system challenges that need to be thoroughly understood to support policy change. AIM: To elicit health care providers' and policymakers' views about the acceptability and feasibility of lung cancer screening (LCS) and barriers and enablers to implementation in the Australian setting. METHODS: We conducted 24 focus groups and three interviews (22 focus groups and all interviews online) in 2021 with 84 health professionals, researchers, and current cancer screening program managers and policy makers across all Australian states and territories. Focus groups included a structured presentation about lung cancer and screening and lasted approximately one hour each. A qualitative approach to analysis was used to map topics to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Nearly all participants considered LCS to be acceptable and feasible but identified a wide range of implementation challenges. Topics (five specific to health systems and five cross-cutting with participant factors) identified were mapped to CFIR constructs, of which 'readiness for implementation', 'planning' and 'executing' were most salient. Health system factor topics included delivery of the LCS program, cost, workforce considerations, quality assurance and complexity of health systems. Participants strongly advocated for streamlined referral processes. Practical strategies to address equity and access, such as using mobile screening vans, were emphasised. CONCLUSIONS: Key stakeholders readily identified the complex challenges associated with the acceptability and feasibility of LCS in Australia. The barriers and facilitators across health system and cross-cutting topics were clearly elicited. These findings are highly relevant to the scoping of a national LCS program by the Australian Government and a subsequent recommendation for implementation.

Lung cancer screening: the hidden public health emergency.

Lung cancer causes nearly 2 million deaths per year worldwide, and cases continue to rise. Most lung cancer is diagnosed at late, incurable stages, and the five-year survival is a fraction of that for other common cancers, including breast, prostate, melanoma and colorectal cancer. Lung cancer screening (LCS) in high-risk populations using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could potentially save thousands of lives per year by shifting the stage at diagnosis to early curable disease. Although an LCS program has not yet started in Australia, two trials have provided local data on the feasibility, selection criteria and outcomes. A government-commissioned report has detailed a potential national program, and Federal Budget funding has been committed to early feasibility projects that include population-specific consultations with, for example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who are at higher risk of lung cancer due to high smoking rates. Effective recruitment to LCS, embedded smoking cessation and the provision of subsequent lung cancer care to all at-risk Australians remain key priorities for any future LCS program.