Systematic review of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' experiences and supportive care needs associated with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Persistent disparities exist between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (the Indigenous peoples of Australia) and non-Indigenous Australians associated with cancer, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experiencing a longer time to treatment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates. This systematic review aimed to investigate findings and recommendations in the literature about the experiences and supportive care needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with cancer in Australia. METHODS: A qualitative systematic review was conducted using thematic analysis. Database searches were conducted in CINAHL, Informit, MEDLINE, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published between January 2000 and December 2021. There were 91 included studies which were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The included studies reported on the experiences of cancer and supportive care needs in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. RESULTS: Six key themes were determined: Culture, family, and community; cancer outcomes; psychological distress; access to health care; cancer education and awareness; and lack of appropriate data. Culture was seen as a potential facilitator to achieving optimal cancer care, with included studies highlighting the need for culturally safe cancer services and the routine collection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status in healthcare settings. CONCLUSION: Future work should capitalize on these findings by encouraging the integration of culture in healthcare settings to increase treatment completion and provide a positive experience for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with cancer.

Challenges and solutions to cancer-related financial toxicity according to Australian health professionals: qualitative results from a national survey.

PURPOSE: To qualitatively explore Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on how to improve the care and management of cancer-related financial toxicity, including relevant practices, services, and unmet needs. METHODS: We invited healthcare professionals (HCP) who currently provide care to people with cancer within their role to complete an online survey, which was distributed via the networks of Australian clinical oncology professional associations/organisations. The survey was developed by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia's Financial Toxicity Working Group and contained 12 open-ended items which we analysed using descriptive content analysis and NVivo software. RESULTS: HCPs (n = 277) believed that identifying and addressing financial concerns within routine cancer care was important and most believed this to be the responsibility of all HCP involved in the patient's care. However, financial toxicity was viewed as a "blind spot" within a medical model of healthcare, with a lack of services, resources, and training identified as barriers to care. Social workers reported assessment and advocacy were part of their role, but many reported lacking formal training and understanding of financial complexities/laws. HCPs reported positive attitudes towards transparent discussions of costs and actioning cost-reduction strategies within their control, but feelings of helplessness when they perceived no solution was available. CONCLUSION: Identifying financial needs and providing transparent information about cancer-related costs was viewed as a cross-disciplinary responsibility, however, a lack of training and services limited the provision of support. Increased cancer-specific financial counselling and advocacy, via dedicated roles or developing HCPs' skills, is urgently needed within the healthcare system.

Opinions and strategies of Australian health professionals on tackling cancer-related financial toxicity: A nationwide survey.

AIM: To understand the opinions and current practices of health professionals on the topic of addressing cancer-related financial toxicity among patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed through Australian clinical oncology professional organizations/networks. The multidisciplinary Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Financial Toxicity Working Group developed 25 questions relating to the frequency and comfort levels of patient-clinician discussions, opinions about their role, strategies used, and barriers to providing solutions for patients. Descriptive statistics were used and subgroup analyses were undertaken by occupational groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven health professionals completed the survey. The majority were female (n = 213, 77%), worked in public facilities (200, 72%), and treated patients with varied cancer types across all of Australia. Most participants agreed that it was appropriate in their clinical role to discuss financial concerns and 231 (88%) believed that these discussions were an important part of high-quality care. However, 73 (28%) stated that they did not have the appropriate information on support services or resources to facilitate such conversations, differing by occupation group; 7 (11%) social workers, 34 (44%) medical specialists, 18 (25%) nurses, and 14 (27%) of other occupations. Hindrances to discussing financial concerns were insufficient resources or support systems to refer to, followed by lack of time in a typical consultation. CONCLUSION: Health professionals in cancer care commonly address the financial concerns of their patients but attitudes differed across occupations about their role, and frustrations were raised about available solutions. Resources supporting financial-related discussions for all health professionals are urgently needed to advance action in this field.

Fighting Cancer around the World: A Framework for Action.

Tackling cancer is a major challenge right on the global level. Europe is only the tip of an iceberg of cancer around the world. Prosperous developed countries share the same problems besetting Europe-and the countries and regions with fewer resources and less propitious conditions are in many cases struggling often heroically against a growing tide of disease. This paper offers a view on these geographically wider, but essentially similar, challenges, and on the prospects for and barriers to better results in this ceaseless battle. A series of panels have been organized by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) to identify different aspects of cancer care around the globe. There is significant diversity in key issues such as NGS, RWE, molecular diagnostics, and reimbursement in different regions. In all, it leads to disparities in access and diagnostics, patients' engagement, and efforts for a better understanding of cancer.

Australian Experiences of Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Burden Following a Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.

(1) Background: This systematic review was conducted to identify cancer patient experiences, and the impact of out-of-pocket costs and financial burden in Australia. (2) Methods: A systematic review, following the Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted. Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PubMed were searched. The primary outcome was financial burden among cancer patients and their families in Australia. The secondary outcome was out-of-pocket costs associated with cancer care and treatment within the population sample, and the impact of financial burden. (3) Results: Nineteen studies were included, covering more than 70,000 Australians affected by cancer. Out-of-pocket costs varied by cancer type and ranged from an average of AUD 977 for breast cancer and lymphoedema patients to AUD 11,077 for prostate cancer patients. Younger aged patients (≤65 years), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people in rural and/or remote areas, households with low income, those who were unemployed and people with private health insurance were at increased risk of experiencing out-of-pocket costs, financial burden or a combination of both. (4) Conclusions: Australians diagnosed with cancer frequently experience financial burden, and the health and financial consequences are significant. Focusing efforts on the costs of care and options about where to have care within the context of informed decisions about cancer care is necessary.

Assessing the implementation of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening in high-income countries.

Background: The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups. Design and Methods: The implementation framework by Proctor et al. was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the "real-world" environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established. Results: Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention. Conclusion: While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.

The impact of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review.

Background: High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results: Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions: This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.