Optimal Cancer Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: A Shared Approach to System Level Change.

PURPOSE: To improve cancer outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the development and national endorsement of the first population-specific optimal care pathway (OCP) to guide the delivery of high-quality, culturally appropriate, and evidence-based cancer care. METHODS: An iterative methodology was undertaken over a 2-year period, and more than 70 organizations and individuals from diverse cultural, geographic, and sectorial backgrounds provided input. Cancer Australia reviewed experiences of care and the evidence base and undertook national public consultation with the indigenous health sector and community, health professionals, and professional colleges. Critical to the OCP development was the leadership of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health experts and consumers. RESULTS: The OCP received unanimous endorsement by all federal, state, and territory health ministers. Key elements of the OCP include attention to the cultural appropriateness of the health care environment; improvement in cross-cultural communication; relationship building with local community; optimization of health literacy; recognition of men's and women's business; and the need to use culturally appropriate resources. The OCP can be used as a tool for health services and health professionals to identify gaps in current cancer services and to inform quality improvement initiatives across all aspects of the care pathway. CONCLUSION: The development of the OCP identified a number of areas that require prioritization. Ensuring culturally safe and accessible health services is essential to support early presentation and diagnosis. Multidisciplinary treatment planning and patient-centered care are required for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, irrespective of location. Health planners and governments acknowledge the imperative for change and have expressed strong commitment to work with indigenous Australians to improve the accessibility, cultural appropriateness, and quality of cancer care.

Development of a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Framework: A Shared Process to Guide Effective Policy and Practice.

Indigenous Australians experience a substantially higher cancer mortality rate than non-Indigenous Australians. While cancer outcomes are improving for non-Indigenous Australians, they are worsening for Indigenous Australians. Reducing this disparity requires evidence-based and culturally-appropriate guidance. The purpose of this paper is to describe an initiative by Cancer Australia and Menzies School of Health Research (Menzies) to develop Australia’s first National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Framework using a process of co-design with relevant stakeholders. The initiative was guided by three core principles: achieving policy-relevant evidence-based outcomes; engaging and maintaining trust with Indigenous Australians at every phase; and employing best-practice and appropriate research methods. Four components of research comprised the Framework development: evidence review; multifaceted stakeholder consultation and input; triangulation of findings; and direct stakeholder input in drafting and refining the Framework. The evidence review confirmed the increasing burden of cancer on Indigenous Australians, while stakeholder consultations facilitated comprehensive input from those with lived experience. The consultations revealed issues not identified in existing literature, and gave different emphases of priority, thus reinforcing the value of including stakeholder perspectives. This paper focuses primarily on documenting the methods used; findings are presented only in order to illustrate the results of the process. The published Framework is available at www.canceraustralia.gov.au; further description and analyses of findings from the consultations will be published elsewhere. The logistics inherent in large-scale consultation are considerable. However, the quality of data and the foundation for sustained partnership with stakeholders and knowledge translation vastly outweighed the challenges. The process of wide-ranging stakeholder consultation described in this paper offers a model for other areas of national and international Indigenous priority setting and policy and practice development that meets the needs of those most affected. The Framework, through the establishment of an agreed, shared and evidence-based agenda, provides guidance for jurisdictional cancer plans, optimal care pathways, and program and service planning for the multiple players across all levels of the health system.

Variations in outcomes by residential location for women with breast cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the evidence for variations in outcomes at each step along the breast cancer continuum of care for Australian women by residential location. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed articles in English published from 1 January 1990 to 24 November 2017 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Informit databases. Inclusion criteria were: population was adult female patients with breast cancer; Australian setting; outcome measure was survival, patient or tumour characteristics, screening rates or frequencies, clinical management, patterns of initial care or post-treatment follow-up with analysis by residential location or studies involving non-metropolitan women only. Included studies were critically appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Seventy-four quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Around 59% were considered high quality, 34% moderate and 7% low. No eligible studies examining treatment choices or post-treatment follow-up were identified. Non-metropolitan women consistently had poorer survival, with most of this differential being attributed to more advanced disease at diagnosis, treatment-related factors and socioeconomic disadvantage. Compared with metropolitan women, non-metropolitan women were more likely to live in disadvantaged areas and had differing clinical management and patterns of care. However, findings regarding geographical variations in tumour characteristics or diagnostic outcomes were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: A general pattern of poorer survival and variations in clinical management for Australian female patients with breast cancer from non-metropolitan areas was evident. However, the wide variability in data sources, measures, study quality, time periods and geographical classification made direct comparisons across studies challenging. The review highlighted the need to promote standardisation of geographical classifications and increased comparability of data systems. It also identified key gaps in the existing literature including a lack of studies on advanced breast cancer, geographical variations in treatment choices from the perspective of patients and post-treatment follow-up.