Childhood cancer models of survivorship care: a scoping review of elements of care and reported outcomes.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically map elements of care and respective outcomes described in the literature for different models of post-treatment care for survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase were searched with combinations of free text terms, synonyms, and MeSH terms using Boolean operators and are current to January 2024. We included studies that described post-treatment cancer survivorship models of care and reported patient or service level elements of care or outcomes, which we mapped to the Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework domains. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies with diverse designs were included representing 6101 childhood cancer survivors (or their parent/caregiver) and 14 healthcare professionals. A diverse range of models of care were reported, including paediatric oncologist-led long-term follow-up, multi-disciplinary survivorship clinics, shared-care, and primary care-led follow-up. Elements of care at the individual level most commonly included surveillance for cancer recurrence as well as assessment of physical and psychological effects. At the service level, satisfaction with care was frequently reported but few studies reported how treatment-related-late effects were managed. The evidence does not support one model of care over another. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in evidence exist regarding distal outcomes such as costs, health care utilization, and mortality, as well as understanding outcomes of managing chronic disease and physical or psychological effects. The findings synthesized in this review provide a valuable reference point for future service planning and evaluation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Decades of research highlight the importance of survivorship care for childhood cancer survivors who are at risk of serious treatment-related late effects. This review emphasizes there is no single, 'one-size fits all' approach for delivering such care to this vulnerable population.

Influences Shaping Clinicians' Monoclonal Antibody and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Preparation and Administration Management Practices: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: In 30 years, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) have enhanced cancer survival and quality of life. Limited knowledge exists regarding the long-term risks of repeated exposure, especially for cancer nurses, who prepare and administer them. This systematic review aimed to identify influences shaping clinicians' awareness and practices in the safe preparation and administration of mAbs and ICPIs. DATA SOURCES: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases CINAHL, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute, OVID, MEDLINE, and Cochrane were searched. Eligibility and risk of bias were assessed by four reviewers. RESULTS: Of 7301 identified studies, 481 duplicates were removed, and 6673 were excluded after title and abstract review. A full-text review was conducted on 147 studies; six studies were included. A narrative synthesis generated two themes: (1) ambiguity contributes to variation in handling practices and (2) continuing professional development (CPD) is vital but hard to implement without evidence. CONCLUSION: Lack of evidence regarding long-term risks and consensus creates uncertainty about the hazardous nature of unconjugated mAbs and ICPIs. Resulting in varied risk reduction strategies during preparation and administration, and inconsistent CPD. Protecting the long-term health of clinicians necessitates consensus on risk reduction strategies. This will be challenging without compelling evidence or international agreement on their hazardous classification. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: In nursing, policy gaps and inconsistent CPD related to unconjugated mAbs and ICPIs may expose nurses to risks. Understanding the educational needs of nurses and global standardized guidelines are urgently needed.

Are Australian Cancer and Palliative Care Nurses Ready to Prescribe Medicines? A National Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Registered nurse prescribing has been put forth, for decades, as an innovative approach to meet growing healthcare needs, particularly in areas of care where medications are essential and highly controlled such as for patients requiring cancer and palliative care. However, the adoption of innovative health delivery models requires acceptance by key stakeholders. This study explores cancer and palliative care nurses' attitudes toward nurse prescribing and their perceptions about educational requirements for a nurse prescriber. DATA SOURCES: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to Australian nurses between March and July 2021. Data were collected using the Advancing Implementation of Nurse Prescribing in Australia online survey. Pearson χ2 tests were used to examine associations between nurses in cancer care, palliative care, and all other specialties on demographics, attitudes to nurse prescribing, and educational perspectives to become prescribers. Of the 4,424 nurses who participated in the survey, 161 nurses identified they worked in cancer care and 109 in palliative care settings. CONCLUSION: Although nurses have a common set of core capabilities, their work contexts and their professional experiences shape their attitudes toward practice. Nurses in cancer care were significantly less certain than nurses in palliative care [χ2(2) = 6.68, P = .04], and nurses from all other specialties [χ2(2) =13.87, P = <.01] of the benefits of nurse prescribing (ie, nurse prescribing would decrease health care system costs, reduce patient risk). Nurses in cancer care were more certain that successfully implementing nurse prescribing requires strong support from their medical and pharmacy colleagues. In addition, nurses working in cancer and palliative care agreed that improving patient care was their primary motivator for becoming a prescriber. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Open to expanding their role and responsibilities, nurses in cancer and palliative care settings reported that successfully adopting nurse prescribing must be supported by their other healthcare colleagues within the same environment, which demands strong interprofessional collaborative efforts.

A Discourse of Deviance: Blame, Shame, Stigma and the Social Construction of Head and Neck Cancer.

Cancer of the head and neck is a confronting condition, as the disease and its treatments alter the appearance and function of body organs associated with physical appearance and identity. Many of the risk factors for head and neck cancers, including tobacco, alcohol, and human papilloma virus, can also have significant negative social and moral permutations. Language and action (discourse) plays an important role in constructing disease and illness and shape the way it is managed, both institutionally and socially. This research used a critical constructionist lens to investigate how the common discourses surrounding head and neck cancer are constructed within the healthcare context and how this influences patients and healthcare professionals' responses to the illness. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, field noting, journaling and literature reviews. Analysis was guided by a three-dimensional approach to critical discourse analysis that investigated text, discursive practices, and social context. The overarching finding was that deviance dominates the common discourse and shapes head and neck cancer and responses to it. Deviance is channelled through metaphors, adjectives, descriptors, and collective nouns and is made overt through labelling, avoidance, blaming, shame, and categorization. Discourse is contextualized by a sociocultural understanding that when someone deviates from what is perceived as normal, they are devalued. Open dialogue and reflection on head and neck cancer discourse could enable better understanding of how people experience their condition and inform more supportive responses.

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.

Clinical Management of Financial Toxicity-Identifying Opportunities through Experiential Insights of Cancer Survivors, Caregivers, and Social Workers.

Perspectives of cancer survivors, caregivers, and social workers as key stakeholders on the clinical management of financial toxicity (FT) are critical to identify opportunities for better FT management. Semi-structured interviews (cancer survivors, caregivers) and a focus group (social workers) were undertaken using purposive sampling at a quaternary public hospital in Australia. People with any cancer diagnosis attending the hospital were eligible. Data were analysed using inductive-deductive content analysis techniques. Twenty-two stakeholders (n = 10 cancer survivors of mixed-cancer types, n = 5 caregivers, and n = 7 social workers) participated. Key findings included: (i) genuine concern for FT of cancer survivors and caregivers shown through practical support by health care and social workers; (ii) need for clarity of role and services; (iii) importance of timely information flow; and (iv) proactive navigation as a priority. While cancer survivors and caregivers received financial assistance and support from the hospital, the lack of synchronised, shared understanding of roles and services in relation to finance between cancer survivors, caregivers, and health professionals undermined the effectiveness and consistency of these services. A proactive approach to anticipate cancer survivors' and caregivers' needs is recommended. Future research may develop and evaluate initiatives to manage cancer survivors and families FT experiences and outcomes.

Investigating the self-perceived educational priorities among oncology nurses.

AIM: To understand the self-perceived educational priorities among oncology nurses. BACKGROUND: Oncology nurses are the main providers of care to people affected by cancer. However, little is known about the educational needs and priorities of oncology nurses when providing care to people living with cancer. DESIGN: A national online survey. SETTING: The Cancer Nurses Society of Australia (CNSA) is an Australian wide professional body for cancer nurses. At the time of conducting the research, there were approximately 1300 members. All members were invited to participate in the survey. CNSA provided access to nurses working in all areas of cancer care, including inpatient wards, outpatient centres, ambulatory day oncology units, radiation oncology, bone marrow transplant units, educational, and research units. PARTICIPANTS: Registered nurses involved in direct care of people affected by cancer who were members of CNSA, and ability to communicate in English. METHODS: The instrument consisted of a 15-item online questionnaire which included demographic and professional questions related to the self-perceived oncology educational needs which were free-text. This survey was hosted using an online electronic data capture system (i.e., SurveyMonkey®), and the electronic link was sent to the CNSA who then sent an email invitation to the 1300 members. RESULTS: 610 educational needs were identified and ranked. These individual answers were grouped into seven overarching categories with various sub-categories within each group. The oncology nurses identified important educational topics which included: a) cancer biology, b) treatments, c) direct patient care, d) age-specific cancer care, e) leadership and research, and f) law and ethics. CONCLUSION: As the number of people affected by cancer continue to rise, addressing the educational needs and priorities of oncology nurses has never been so important. Higher educational institutions and healthcare institutions should consider these findings in addressing the learning needs for the current oncology nursing workforce.

Cancer survivorship care and general practice: A qualitative study of roles of general practice team members in Australia.

Primary care providers, including general practice teams (GPTs), are well positioned within the community to integrate cancer survivorship care into ongoing health management. However, roles of GPT members in delivery of cancer survivorship care have not been explored. The purpose of this study is to explore these roles from the perspectives of General Practitioners (GPs), Practice Nurses (PNs) and Practice Managers (PMs). An interpretive qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews with ten GPs, nine PNs and five PMs was conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using grounded theory methods. Perspectives of roles in delivery of cancer survivorship care were highly variable. Variation was evident among perceptions of needs of cancer survivors, individual team members' scopes of practice, and individual professional knowledge and skills. A lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities of GPT members was thought to contribute to a lack of consistency in survivorship care. Reducing variations in perceptions of survivorship care in the primary care setting should be a priority. Such efforts may include development of practical guidance to support GPT members to clarify scopes of practice within the team. In addition to accessible comprehensive education programs, other innovative, tailored individualised education approaches may be helpful. System-level support in clarifying and supporting the roles of the primary care team is needed to facilitate a survivorship delivery system at general practice level where those within GPT can ensure that individual patients' needs are met in a timely and effective manner.

Exploring the role of general practitioners in addressing financial toxicity in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity (FT) describes financial distress or hardship as an outcome of cancer and its treatment. Minimising the impact of FT requires early assessment and intervention. General practice plays a significant role in the support of a person with cancer and may have an important role in the management of FT. The purpose of this study was to understand perspectives of general practitioners (GP) on addressing FT in the primary care setting, which may then help inform strategies to further support collaborative efforts to address FT. METHODS: A qualitative interpretive approach was utilised for this study. GPs were recruited through a GP conference and other professional networks using purposive, snowballing sampling techniques. Data collection continued until sufficient rich data had been obtained. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using inductive analysis techniques. RESULTS: Twenty (n = 20) GPs participated in semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews. GPs identified that their role positions them well to provide some FT support, but there are limitations. Perceptions and philosophies about cancer management were drivers of referrals and financial conversations. Priorities for care of FT by GPs included improved cost information provision and accessible support. CONCLUSION: GPs can play an important role in helping to address FT associated with cancer and its treatments if supported with the right information.

Juggling cancer and life in survivorship: The role of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The number of cancer survivors in Australia is growing. General practitioners (GPs) have a key role in providing holistic care to people experiencing a cancer diagnosis, receiving treatment or enduring long-term effects of cancer and its treatment. Cancer survivors experience a range of unique biopsychosocial issues, requiring significant and coordinated care to optimise their quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of management strategies for GPs in addressing three highly distressing cancer-related issues: fear of cancer recurrence, financial toxicity and management of relationships. DISCUSSION: Recommendations are provided for effective screening and monitoring of cancer-related issues, with management strategies outlined to facilitate GP-initiated discussions and referral to credible resources and other health services. Useful materials relevant to the Australian primary care setting are presented together with an overview of information to support GP provision of cancer survivorship care for fear of cancer recurrence, financial toxicity and relationship issues.