Specialist Palliative Care and Health Care Costs at the End of Life.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use and costs of health care rise substantially in the months prior to death, and although the use of palliative care services may be expected to lead to less costly care, the evidence is mixed. We analysed the costs of care over the last year of life and the extent to which these are associated with the use and duration of specialist palliative care (SPC) for decedents who died from cancer or another life-limiting illness. METHODS: The decedents were participants in a cohort study of older residents of the state of New South Wales, Australia. Using linked survey and administrative health data from 2007 to 2016, two cohorts were identified: n = 10,535 where the cause of death was cancer; and n = 11,179 where the cause of death was another life-limiting illness. Costs of various types were analysed with separate risk-adjusted linear regression models for the last 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months before death and for both cohorts. SPC was categorised according to time to death from first contact with the service as 1-7 days, 7-30 days, 30-180 days and more than 180 days. RESULTS: SPC use was higher among the cancer cohort (30.0%) relative to the non-cancer cohort (4.8%). The mean costs over the final year of life were AU$55,037 (SD 45,059) for the cancer cohort and AU$35,318 (SD 41,948) for the non-cancer cohort. Earlier use of SPC was associated with higher costs over the last year of life but lower costs in the last 1 and 3 months for both cohorts. Initiating SPC use more than 180 days before death was associated with a mean difference relative to the no SPC group of AU$15,590 (95% CI 10,617 to 20,562) and AU$13,739 (95% CI 733 to 26,746) over the last year of life for those dying from cancer and another illness, respectively. The same differences over the last month of life were - AU$2810 (95% CI -  3945 to -  1676) and - AU$4345 (95% CI -  6625 to - 2066). Admitted hospital care was the major driver of costs, with longer SPC associated with lower rates of death in hospital for both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Early initiation of SPC was associated with higher costs over the last year of life and lower costs over the last months of life. This was the case for both the cancer and non-cancer cohorts, and appeared to be largely attributed to reduced hospitalisation. Although further investigation is required, our results suggest that expanding the availability of SPC services to provide more equitable access could enable patients to spend more time at their usual place of residence, reduce pressure on inpatient services and facilitate death at home when that is preferred.

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.

Clinical Utility Assessment of a Nursing Checklist Identifying Complex Care Needs Due to Inequities Among Ambulatory Patients With Cancer: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer incidence, complex care needs, and poor health outcomes are largely driven by structural inequities stemming from social determinants of health. To date, no evidence-based clinical tool has been developed to identify newly diagnosed patients at risk of poorer outcomes. Specialist cancer nurses are well-positioned to ameliorate inequity of opportunity for optimal care, treatment, and outcomes through timely screening, assessment, and intervention. We designed a nursing complexity checklist (the "Checklist") to support these activities, with the ultimate goal of improving equitable experiences and outcomes of care. This study aims to generate evidence regarding the clinical utility of the Checklist. OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this study are to provide qualitative evidence regarding key aspects of the Checklist's clinical utility (appropriateness, acceptability, and practicability), informed by Smart's multidimensional model of clinical utility. Secondary objectives explore the predictive value of the Checklist and concordance between specific checklist items and patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: This prospective mixed methods case series study will recruit up to 60 newly diagnosed patients with cancer and 10 specialist nurses from a specialist cancer center. Nurses will complete the Checklist with patient participants. Within 2 weeks of Checklist completion, patients will complete 5 patient-reported outcome measures with established psychometric properties that correspond to specific checklist items and an individual semistructured interview to explore Checklist clinical utility. Interviews with nurses will occur 12 and 24 weeks after they first complete a checklist, exploring perceptions of the Checklist's clinical utility including barriers and facilitators to implementation. Data describing planned and unplanned patient service use will be collected from patient follow-up interviews at 12 weeks and the electronic medical record at 24 weeks after Checklist completion. Descriptive statistics will summarize operational, checklist, and electronic medical record data. The predictive value of the Checklist and the relationship between specific checklist items and relevant patient-reported outcome measures will be examined using descriptive statistics, contingency tables, measures of association, and plots as appropriate. Qualitative data will be analyzed using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: This study was approved by the institution's ethics committee. The enrollment period commenced in May 2022 and ended in November 2022. In total, 37 patients with cancer and 7 specialist cancer nurses were recruited at this time. Data collection is scheduled for completion at the end of May 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate key clinical utility dimensions of a nursing complexity checklist. It will also provide preliminary evidence on its predictive value and information to support its seamless implementation into everyday practice including, but not limited to, possible revisions to the Checklist, instructions, and training for relevant personnel. Future implementation of this Checklist may improve equity of opportunity of access to care for patients with cancer. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48432.

Why is advance care planning underused in oncology settings? A systematic overview of reviews to identify the benefits, barriers, enablers, and interventions to improve uptake.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) centres on supporting people to define and discuss their individual goals and preferences for future medical care, and to record and review these as appropriate. Despite recommendations from guidelines, rates of documentation for people with cancer are considerably low. Aim: To systematically clarify and consolidate the evidence base of ACP in cancer care by exploring how it is defined; identifying benefits, and known barriers and enablers across patient, clinical and healthcare services levels; as well as interventions that improve advance care planning and are their effectiveness. Methods: A systematic overview of reviews was conducted and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. PubMed, Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for review related to ACP in cancer. Content analysis and narrative synthesis were used for data analysis. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to code barriers and enablers of ACP as well as the implied barriers targeted by each of the interventions. Results: Eighteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. Definitions were inconsistent across reviews that defined ACP (n=16). Proposed benefits identified in 15/18 reviews were rarely empirically supported. Interventions reported in seven reviews tended to target the patient, even though more barriers were associated with healthcare providers (n=40 versus n=60, respectively). Conclusion: To improve ACP uptake in oncology settings; the definition should include key categories that clarify the utility and benefits. Interventions need to target healthcare providers and empirically identified barriers to be most effective in improving uptake. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier CRD42021288825.

Higher fees and out-of-pocket costs in radiotherapy point to a need for funding reform.

Objective To elucidate the policy implications of recent trends in the funding of radiotherapy services between 2009-10 and 2021-22. Method We use national aggregate claims data to determine time trends in the fees, benefits and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of radiotherapy and nuclear therapeutic medicine claims funded through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) program. All dollar figures are expressed in constant 2021 Australian dollars. Results Radiotherapy and nuclear therapeutic medicine MBS claims increased by 78% whereas MBS funding increased by 137% between 2009-10 and 2021-22. The main driver of Medicare funding growth has been the Extended Medicare Safety Net, which has increased by 404%. Over the 13 year observation period, the percentage of bulk-billed claims peaked in 2017-18 at 76.1% but fell to 69.8% in 2021-22. For non-bulk billed services, average OOP costs per claim increased from $20.40 in 2009-10 to $69.78 in 2021-22. Conclusion Despite increased Medicare funding, patients face increasing financial barriers to access radiation oncology services. Policies with regard to funding radiotherapy services should be reviewed to ensure that services are easily accessible and affordable for all those needing treatment and at a reasonable cost to Government.

Skin cancer-related conditions managed in general practice in Australia, 2000-2016: a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: Skin cancer is Australia's most common and costly cancer. We examined the frequency of Australian general practice consultations for skin cancer-related conditions, by patient and general practitioner (GP) characteristics and by time period. DESIGN: Nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of general practice clinical activity. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 15 years or older having a skin cancer-related condition managed by GPs in the Bettering the Evaluation And Care of Health study between April 2000 and March 2016. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions and rates per 1000 encounters. RESULTS: In this period, 15 678 GPs recorded 1 370 826 patient encounters, of which skin cancer-related conditions were managed 65 411 times (rate of 47.72 per 1000 encounters, 95% CI 46.41 to 49.02). Across the whole period, 'skin conditions' managed were solar keratosis (29.87%), keratinocyte cancer (24.85%), other skin lesion (12.93%), nevi (10.98%), skin check (10.37%), benign skin neoplasm (8.76%) and melanoma (2.42%). Over time, management rates increased for keratinocyte cancers, skin checks, skin lesions, benign skin neoplasms and melanoma; but remained stable for solar keratoses and nevi. Skin cancer-related encounter rates were higher for patients aged 65-89 years, male, living in Queensland or in regional or remote areas, with lower area-based socioeconomic status, of English-speaking background, Veteran card holders and non-healthcare card holders; and for GPs who were aged 35-44 years or male. CONCLUSION: These findings show the spectrum and burden of skin cancer-related conditions managed in general practice in Australia, which can guide GP education, policy and interventions to optimise skin cancer prevention and management.

Strengthening cancer control in the South Pacific through coalition-building: a co-design framework.

Background: Cancer is a significant problem for the South Pacific region due to a range of complex health challenges. Currently gaps in diagnosis, treatment and palliative care are significant, and while governmental commitment is strong, economic constrains limit health system strengthening. Alliances have been successful in strengthening non-communicable disease and cancer control policy and services in resource constrained settings. A regional coalition approach has therefore been recommended as an effective solution to addressing many of the challenges for cancer control in the South Pacific. However, evidence regarding the effective mechanisms for development of alliances or coalitions is scarce. This study aimed to 1) create a Coalition Development Framework; 2) assess the use of the Framework in practice to co-design a South Pacific Coalition. Methods: Creation of the Coalition Development Framework commenced with a scoping review and content analysis of existing literature. Synthesis of key elements formed an evidence-informed step-by-step guide for coalition-building. Application of the Framework comprised consultation and iterative discussions with key South Pacific cancer control stakeholders in Fiji, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga. Concurrent evaluation of the Framework utilising Theory of Change (ToC) and qualitative analysis of stakeholder consultations was undertaken. Findings: The finalised Coalition Development Framework comprised four phases with associated actions and deliverables: engagement, discovery, unification, action and monitoring. Application of the Framework in the South Pacific identified overwhelming support for a Cancer Control Coalition through 35 stakeholder consultations. Framework phases enabled stakeholders to confirm coalition design and purpose, strategic imperatives, structure, local foundations, barriers and facilitators, and priorities for action. ToC and thematic consultation analysis confirmed the Framework to be an effective mechanism to drive engagement, unification and action in alliance-building. Interpretation: A Coalition to drive cancer control has significant support among key Pacific stakeholders, and establishment can now be commenced. Importantly results confirm the effective application of the Coalition Development Framework in an applied setting. If momentum is continued, and a regional South Pacific Coalition established, the benefits in reducing the burden of cancer within the region will be substantial. Funding: This work was completed for a Masters of Public Health project. Cancer Council Australia provided project funding.

Geographic variation in out-of-pocket costs for radiation oncology services.

OBJECTIVES: To examine out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients for radiation oncology services and their variation by geographic location. DESIGN: Analysis of patient-level Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS) claims data linked with data from the Sax Institute 45 and Up Study. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: People who received Medicare-subsidised radiation oncology services in New South Wales, 2006-2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean out-of-pocket costs for an episode of radiation oncology (during 90 days from start of radiotherapy planning service), by geographic location (postcode-based), overall and after excluding episodes with no out-of-pocket costs (fully bulk-billed). RESULTS: During 2006-2017, 12 724 people received 15 506 episodes of radiation oncology care in 25 postcode-defined geographic areas. The proportion of episodes for which the out-of-pocket cost was less than $1 increased from 39% in 2006 to 76% in 2017; the proportion for which out-of-pocket costs exceeded $500 declined from 43% in 2006 to 10% in 2014, before increasing to 17% in 2017. For care episodes with non-zero out-of-pocket costs, the mean amount rose from around $1186 to $1611 per episode of care during 2006-2017. The proportion of radiation oncology episodes bulk-billed exceeded 90% in nine areas; in seven areas, all with exclusively private care provision of radiation oncology, it was 21% or smaller. Within geographic areas, out-of-pocket costs for individual care episodes varied widely; in ten areas with lower bulk-billing rates, the interquartile range for costs ranged from $240 to $1857. CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket costs are an important determinant of access to care. Although radiotherapy costs for most people are moderate, some face very high costs, and these vary markedly by location. It is important to ensure that radiation oncology services remain affordable for all people who need treatment.

Women with gynaecological cancer awaiting radiotherapy: Self-reported wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function, and supportive care needs.

OBJECTIVE: To better serve women with gynaecological cancers, we need a sound understanding of their health, wellbeing and needs. This study sought to explore these issues in a sample of Australian women before commencing curative radiotherapy. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a supportive care trial (n = 311). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise responses to measures of wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function and vaginal changes, and supportive care needs. Pre-specified regression models were used to examine sources of variation in wellbeing and sexual function. RESULTS: Women reported lower emotional, functional and physical wellbeing than population norms (all p < 0.001). The prevalence of general psychological distress was 31% (95% CI 26-36%). Distress caused by physical symptoms was typically low. Health system and information needs comprised eight of the top ten moderate-to-high supportive care needs. Most women reported no change in interest for physical contact or sex compared to pre-diagnosis, but some sexually active women (16-24%) reported smaller vaginal size, increased dryness, and more pain on intercourse. General psychological distress was a robust marker of poorer wellbeing and sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Before radiotherapy, a substantial minority of women with gynaecological cancers experience general psychological distress, reduced wellbeing and moderate-to-high health system and information needs. A model of comprehensive care incorporating assessment of unmet needs, general psychological distress, and sexual issues is recommended. Healthcare providers may require training to elicit and respond to a constellation of interrelated issues and access relevant services for women requiring additional support.

Cancer incidence and mortality in Australia from 2020 to 2044 and an exploratory analysis of the potential effect of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic: a statistical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term projections of cancer incidence and mortality estimate the future burden of cancer in a population, and can be of great use in informing the planning of health services and the management of resources. We aimed to estimate incidence and mortality rates and numbers of new cases and deaths up until 2044 for all cancers combined and for 21 individual cancer types in Australia. We also illustrate the potential effect of treatment delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic on future colorectal cancer mortality rates. METHODS: In this statistical modelling study, cancer incidence and mortality rates in Australia from 2020 to 2044 were projected based on data up to 2017 and 2019, respectively. Cigarette smoking exposure (1945-2019), participation rates in the breast cancer screening programme (1996-2019), and prostate-specific antigen testing rates (1994-2020) were included where relevant. The baseline projection model using an age-period-cohort model or generalised linear model for each cancer type was selected based on model fit statistics and validation with pre-COVID-19 observed data. To assess the impact of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer mortality, we obtained data on incidence, survival, prevalence, and cancer treatment for colorectal cancer from different authorities. The relative risks of death due to system-caused treatment delays were derived from a published systematic review. Numbers of excess colorectal cancer deaths were estimated using the relative risk of death per week of treatment delay and different durations of delay under a number of hypothetical scenarios. FINDINGS: Projections indicate that in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic effects, the age-standardised incidence rate for all cancers combined for males would decline over 2020-44, and for females the incidence rate would be relatively stable in Australia. The mortality rates for all cancers combined for both males and females are expected to continuously decline during 2020-44. The total number of new cases are projected to increase by 47·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 35·2-61·3) for males, from 380 306 in 2015-19 to 560 744 (95% UI 514 244-613 356) in 2040-44, and by 54·4% (95% UI 40·2-70·5) for females, from 313 263 in 2015-19 to 483 527 (95% UI 439 069-534 090) in 2040-44. The number of cancer deaths are projected to increase by 36·4% (95% UI 15·3-63·9) for males, from 132 440 in 2015-19 to 180 663 (95% UI 152 719-217 126) in 2040-44, and by 36·6% (95% UI 15·8-64·1) for females, from 102 103 in 2015-19 to 139 482 (95% UI 118 186-167 527) in 2040-44, due to population ageing and growth. The example COVID-19 pandemic scenario of a 6-month health-care system disruption with 16-week treatment delays for colorectal cancer patients could result in 460 (95% UI 338-595) additional deaths and 437 (95% UI 314-570) deaths occurring earlier than expected in 2020-44. INTERPRETATION: These projections can inform health service planning for cancer care and treatment in Australia. Despite the continuous decline in cancer mortality rates, and the decline or plateau in incidence rates, our projections suggest an overall 51% increase in the number of new cancer cases and a 36% increase in the number of cancer deaths over the 25-year projection period. This means that continued efforts to increase screening uptake and to control risk factors, including smoking exposure, obesity, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and infections, must remain public health priorities. FUNDING: Partly funded by Cancer Council Australia.

How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review.

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.

Developing clinical indicators for oncology: the inaugural cancer care indicator set for the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) sponsored an expert-led, consensus-driven, four-stage process, based on a modified Delphi methodology, to determine a set of clinical indicators as quality measures of cancer service provision in Australia. This was done in response to requests from institutional health care providers seeking accreditation, which were additional and complementary to the existing radiation oncology set. The steering group members comprised multidisciplinary key opinion leaders and a consumer representative. Five additional participants constituted the stakeholder group, who deliberated on the final indicator set. METHODS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: An initial meeting of the steering group scoped the high level nature of the desired set. In stage 2, 65 candidate indicators were identified by a literature review and a search of international metrics. These were ranked by survey, based on ease of data accessibility and collectability and clinical relevance. The top 27 candidates were debated by the stakeholder group and culled to a final set of 16 indicators. A user manual was created with indicators mapped to clinical codes. The indicator set was ratified by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and is now available for use by health care organisations participating in the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. This inaugural cancer clinical indicator set covers high level assessment of various critical processes in cancer service provision in Australia. Regular reviews and updates will ensure usability. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: This is the inaugural indicator set for cancer care for use across Australia and internationally under the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. Multidisciplinary involvement through a modified Delphi process selected indicators representing both generic and specific aspects of care across the cancer journey pathway and will provide a functional tool to compare health care delivery across multiple settings. It is anticipated that this will drive continual improvement in cancer care provision.

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.

Development of the 'REadiness SElf-assessment (RESEA) guide' to assist low and middle-income countries with establishing safe and sustainable radiotherapy services: a pragmatic sequential mixed qualitative methods project.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to radiotherapy services in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenging. Many LMICs' radiotherapy initiatives fail because of multi-faceted barriers leading to significant wastage of scarce resources. Supporting LMICs to self-assess their readiness for establishing radiotherapy services will help to improve cancer outcomes by ensuring safe, effective and sustainable evidenced-based cancer care. The aim of the study was to develop practical guidance for LMICs on self-assessing their readiness to establish safe and sustainable radiotherapy services. METHODS: The Access to Radiotherapy for Cancer treatment (ARC) Project was a pragmatic sequential mixed qualitative methods design underpinned by the World Health Organisation's 'Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions Framework' and 'Health System Building Blocks Framework for Action' conceptual frameworks. This paper reports on the process of overall data integration and meta-inference from previously published components comprising a systematic review and two-part qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and a participant validation process). The meta-inferences enabled a series of radiotherapy readiness self-assessment requirements to be generated, formalised as a REadiness SElf-Assessment (RESEA) Guide' for use by LMICs. FINDINGS: The meta-inferences identified a large number of factors that acted as facilitators and/or barriers, depending on the situation, which include: awareness and advocacy; political leadership; epidemiological data; financial resources; basic physical infrastructure; radiation safety legislative and regulatory framework; project management; and radiotherapy workforce training and education. 'Commitment', 'cooperation', 'capacity' and 'catalyst' were identified as the key domains enabling development of radiotherapy services. Across these four domains, the RESEA Guide included 37 requirements and 120 readiness questions that LMICs need to consider and answer as part of establishing a new radiotherapy service. CONCLUSIONS: The RESEA Guide provides a new resource for LMICs to self-assess their capacity to establish safe and sustainable radiotherapy services. Future evaluation of the acceptability and feasibility of the RESEA Guide is needed to inform its validity. Further work, including field study, is needed to inform further refinements. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses are required to reduce the data set and test the fit of the four-factor structure (commitment, cooperation, capacity and catalyst) found in the current study.

Supporting and preparing patients for radiotherapy: Patients' and radiation therapists' perspectives on their one-to-one consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Patients are often anxious and lack knowledge of radiotherapy prior to commencing treatment. Evidence-based interventions are required to reduce patient anxiety and increase patient preparation before treatment. This study is part of a larger project examining the effectiveness of an innovative preparatory intervention "RT Prepare," to reduce patient psychological distress prior to treatment for breast cancer. This study aimed to explore patients' and RTs' perceptions about the "RT Prepare" intervention and was conducted to assist with refinement of the intervention for future implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and radiation therapists (RTs) to elicit their perspectives on the "RT Prepare" intervention. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 21 patients who had received the intervention and 15 RTs who had delivered the intervention. Patients and RTs described the intervention positively and highlighted that it was beneficial for preparing patients for treatment planning and treatment. The overarching themes were communication skills; preparation; information provision and dedicated space and time. CONCLUSION: RT Prepare was well received by patients and RTs. Practice implications Based on the results of this study and our quantitative findings, implementation of the intervention would be beneficial for both patients and RTs.

Development and testing of a guideline document to provide essential information for patient decision making regarding cancer clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a guideline document to advise the content of a summarised patient information form (SPIF) regarding cancer clinical trials. METHODS: A two-phase study was undertaken to inform the development of the guideline document. In phase 1, 15 statements drawn from an international Delphi study and participant commentary were used to draft content for the guideline document. In phase 2, Delphi participants were invited to contribute to a five-step process via an online survey, to feedback on the guideline document, including the process for guideline formulation, testing application, revision, utility and clarity assessment, and completion. RESULTS: Over 73% of respondents to the online survey agreed that a sample SPIF generated by the draft guideline could support patient decision making. After the draft guideline revision, the researcher and four health professionals used the guideline to independently create a SPIF. The Flesch-Kincaid reading ease scores of the sample SPIFs were between 61.3 and 66.5, with reading levels between 7.8 and 8.8, indicating that the guideline document can assist health professionals with the generation of an understandable SPIF. The reference group members provided positive feedback on the guideline document, and an expert on plain language in healthcare information proofread the guideline document. CONCLUSION: The approach used in the study ensured the potential of the guideline document developed to enable generation of SPIFs that provide patients considering participation in a cancer clinical trial with essential and understandable information to support their decision making.