Mapping the European cancer prevention research landscape: A case for more prevention research funding.

Despite the strong evidence of prevention as a prime defence against the disease, the majority of cancer research investment continues to be made in basic science and clinical translational research. Little quantitative data is available to guide decisions on the choice of research priorities or the allocation of research resources. The primary aim of the mapping of the European cancer prevention research landscape presented in this paper is to provide the evidence-base to inform future investments in cancer research. Using bibliometric data to identify funders that are active in prevention research in Europe and in the world, we have identified that 14% of cancer research papers had a focus on prevention research and those were funded by 16% of all the European cancer research funders. An important finding of our study is the lack of research on primary prevention with primary prevention funders accounting for 25% of European cancer prevention funders, meaning that less than 4% of all European cancer research funders identified show an interest in primary prevention. An additional analysis revealed that 7% of European cancer prevention research papers are categorised as implementation projects, meaning that only 1% of all cancer research publications are implementation research in cancer prevention. This paper highlights that the narrow focus on biology and treatment in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as primary prevention and secondary prevention and a larger concentration on implementation research. These data can help support a more policy-focused cancer research agenda for individual European governments and charitable and philanthropic organisations and stimulate joining efforts across Europe to create a more systematic and structured approach to cancer prevention.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Planned or emergent? An evaluation of a Master's in Health Professions Education programme.

BACKGROUND: Programme developers have the responsibility of ongoing programme renewal and evaluation to ensure that curricula remain responsive to rapidly changing educational and healthcare contexts. In reporting on programmes, significant emphasis is often placed on content and outcomes of Master's in Health Professions Education (MHPE) programmes. However, less emphasis has been placed on meaningful evaluation of all aspects of these programmes, particularly from a student perspective including what worked and what needs to be enhanced, as well as any emergent or unplanned factors. As the number of established MHPE programmes increases, so does the need for evaluation models that consider programme complexity. In this article we consider a MHPE programme against a model that provided scope for going beyond 'did it work?' Our intention was to determine whether the renewed MPhil in HPE programme was implemented as planned, and to which extent it achieved the planned outcomes. METHODS: This programme evaluation was conducted in an interpretive paradigm. We collected qualitative data at two points. Firstly, at the start of students' first-year with voluntary participation in focus groups and secondly, a year later with voluntary participation in individual interviews. Two members of the research team performed the initial thematic analysis of both the focus group interviews and the individual interviews. Thereafter, the full author team worked collaboratively discussing the themes until we reached consensus, looking specifically to identify any "emergent" factors. RESULTS: We identified three themes in the student data related to the process of implementing the new programme and the outcomes from it, including those aspects that could be regarded as emergent or unplanned: balancing work, personal lives and studies; managing the hybrid learning approach; and the scholarly journey. CONCLUSIONS: While many of the outcomes of the renewed programme were met, not all manifested as had been planned. The experience of the programme differed from one student to the next such that at the end of the two years they were at different points in their scholarly journeys. We realised that although we sought to be pedagogically sound in the process of curriculum renewal, we did not take into account the complex matrix of influences that sit outside the formal curriculum. Future renewal activities should intentionally and sensitively consider those factors, both planned and emergent, that influence a student's journey towards becoming a scholarly teacher and teaching scholar.

Re-imagining health professions education in the coronavirus disease 2019 era: Perspectives from South Africa.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic hit South Africa in March 2020, severely disrupting health services and health education. This fundamentally impacted the training of future health professionals and catalysed a significant response from across the health education sector. In 2020, the South African Association of Health Educationalists requested members to submit reflections on different aspects of their COVID-19 related educational responses.Responding to the pandemic: Seven vignettes focused specifically on clinical training in the context of primary care and family medicine. This short report highlights the key insights that emerged from these vignettes, considering what has been learnt in terms of health professions education and what we need to take forward. These insights include building on what was already in place, the student role, technology in the clinical learning context, taking workshops online, vulnerability and presence and the way going forward. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The contributions emphasised the value of existing relationships between the health services and training institutions, collaboration and transparent communication between stakeholders when navigating a crisis, responsiveness to the changed platform and dynamic environment and aligning teaching with healthcare needs. It is more important than ever to set explicit goals, have clarity of purpose when designing learning opportunities and to provide support to students. Some of these learning points may be appropriate for similar contexts in Africa. How we inculcate what we have learned into the post-pandemic period will bear testimony to the extent to which this crisis has enabled us to re-imagine health professions education.

Supervision interactions and student learning: how supervision can influence learning.

Background/Introduction: Supervision interactions are a central part of clinical education. The researcher explored and described the intricate construction of supervision interactions to better understand the influence thereof on student learning. Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore how Clinical Educators and physiotherapy students use supervision interactions toward student learning during clinical education. The perceptions and experiences of Clinical Educators and physiotherapy students were explored and described. Methodology: This study followed a qualitative research approach. The data were obtained by the researcher through semi-structured individual interviews with six students and four Clinical Educators. Themes were identified through thematic analysis. Results: Three themes that contributed to the construction of supervision interactions were developed as contextual, personal and relational elements. The consideration of these elements in supervision interactions influenced student learning and future relationships with patients. Conclusion: The emotionally attuned, effective leadership and management by Clinical Educators are fundamental in the construction of supervision interactions. Contextual, relational and personal elements should be considered in the construction of supervision interactions. Faculty should provide appropriate support to Clinical Educators, students and placements.

Exploring perspectives on health professions education scholarship units from sub-Saharan Africa.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a marked increase in institutional structures developed to support health professions education scholarship recently. These health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) engage in a diverse range of activities. Previous work provided insight into factors that influence the functioning of such units, but data from European, Asian, Latin American, and African contexts was absent, potentially leading to a single world-view informing international standards for HPESUs. This aim of this study was to explore perspectives from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in response to this omission. METHODS: Situated within an interpretivist paradigm, the research team conducted semi-structured interviews with nine HPESU leaders in SSA, exploring how participants experienced and understood the functioning of their units. Despite efforts to have representation from across the region, most participants were from South Africa. The researchers analysed data thematically using the theory of institutional logics as an analytical frame. RESULTS: Several aspects of the HPESUs aligned with the previously identified logics of academic research, service and teaching; and of a cohesive education continuum. By contrast, leaders described financial sustainability as a more prominent logic than financial accountability. DISCUSSION: The similarities identified in this study may reflect isomorphism-a process which sees institutions within a similar field becoming more alike, particularly as newer institutions seek to acquire legitimacy within that field. An important caveat, however, is that isomorphism tends to occur across similar institutional contexts, which was not the case in this study. Understanding these differences is key as these HPESUs move to foster scholarship that can respond to the region's unique context.

Mapping the Global Cancer Research Funding Landscape.

BACKGROUND: Global investment in research on noncommunicable diseases is on the rise. Cancer as primus inter pares draws particular interest from a wide spectrum of research funders. Next to the private, governmental, and academic sectors, philanthropy has carved out a sizeable area in the funding landscape over the last 25 years. Previous reports describing cancer research funding have looked at the volume of investment in cancer research but have paid little attention to building strategic intelligence on funders. Moreover, these efforts have focused primarily on well-resourced organizations, neglecting a large number of players with less-developed finances. METHODS: In this article, we combined gnostic data acquisition with agnostic bibliometrics to establish a comprehensive map of the global cancer research funding landscape. The analysis of funding acknowledgments from cancer research papers used in this exercise is a "bottom-up" method that provides a broader perspective on the variety of actors involved. It does not rely on a priori knowledge, nor does it require funders' support for access to the data. RESULTS: Using this approach, we have identified a total of 4693 organizations from 107 countries engaged in funding cancer research today. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest mapping exercise performed to date and should serve as a knowledge base for future analyses and comparisons aimed at understanding the dynamics and priorities of global cancer research funding.