Indigenous Australians with non-small cell lung cancer or cervical cancer receive suboptimal treatment

Indigenous access to clinical services along the lung cancer treatment pathway: a review of current evidence

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is a deadly cancer. Early diagnosis and access to timely treatment are essential to maximizing the likelihood of survival. Indigenous peoples experience enduring disparities in lung cancer survival, and disparities in access to and through lung cancer services is one of the important drivers of these disparities. In this manuscript, we aimed to examine the current evidence on disparities in Indigenous access to services along the lung cancer treatment pathway.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted for all manuscripts and reports published up until July 20, 2022, using Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Following the identification of eligible literature, full-text versions were scanned for relevance for inclusion in this review, and relevant information was extracted. After scanning 1,459 documents for inclusion, our final review included 36 manuscripts and reports that included information on lung cancer service access for Indigenous peoples relative to non-Indigenous peoples. These documents included data from Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the USA (including Hawai'i).

RESULTS

Our review found evidence of disparities in access to, and the journey through, lung cancer care for Indigenous peoples. Disparities were most obvious in access to early detection and surgery, with inconsistent evidence regarding other components of the pathway.

CONCLUSION

These observations are made amid relatively scant data in a global sense, highlighting the need for improved data collection and monitoring of cancer care and outcomes for Indigenous peoples worldwide. Access to early detection and guideline-concordant treatment are essential to addressing enduring disparities in cancer survival experienced by Indigenous peoples globally.

Risk factors for pulmonary infection in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess and examine the risk variables associated with pulmonary infections in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to offer evidence-based recommendations for clinical prophylaxis.

METHODS

Up to December 2023, database such as CNKI, Wanfang, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Journals, Chinese Biomedical, Pubmed, Web of science, and the Cochrane library were searched in order to find randomized controlled trials pertaining to non-small cell lung cancer complicated by pulmonary infection. The NOS scale was utilized to assess the quality of the included research, and the Q test findings were utilized to ascertain the degree of heterogeneity among the studies.

RESULTS

After retrieving 957 studies in total, 10 literatures were ultimately included for additional analysis. Diabetes mellitus [OR, 2.89; 95% CI: 1.85-4.52; P < 0.00001)] hypoalbuminemia, radiotherapy [OR, 0.43; 95% CI: 1.89-4.07; P < 0.00001], and surgical duration exceeding 180 min [OR,1.10 (1.10 ~ 5.38); P = 0.03] were found to be risk factors for lung infection. Nevertheless, in NSCLC patients, pulmonary infection was not significantly correlated with factors such as age [OR, -0.16 (-0.96 ~ 0.64); P = 0.69], sex [OR, 1.08 (0.77 ~ 1.51); P = 0.66], smoking [OR, 1.10 (0.61 ~ 2.00); P = 0.75], adenocarcinoma [OR,1.10 (0.55 ~ 2.22); P = 0.79], OR, 1.08; 95% CI: 0.77-1.51; P = 0.66], TNMIII-IV stages [OR, 1.62; 95% CI: 0.96-2.75; P = 0.07], and hypertension [1.01(0.76 ~ 1.34); P = 0.94].

CONCLUSION

Diabetes mellitus, radiation therapy, and longer than 180-minute surgeries are risk factors for lung infection in NSCLC patients. The incidence of lung infection can be reduced by quickly identifying these risk factors and putting preventive measures in place.

Barriers and facilitators to adherence to Optimal Care Pathways for diagnosis and treatment of cancer for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

BACKGROUND

The Optimal Care Pathways (OCP) are a framework to promote high-quality and integrated cancer care for all Australians, from prevention through to end-of-life-care. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience disproportionate cancer incidence and mortality, but little research has addressed whether cancer care for Aboriginal people meets the standards prescribed by the OCPs. This study aims to consider barriers and facilitators to quality cancer care for Aboriginal people.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 health professionals who deliver care to Aboriginal people with cancer in primary care and hospital settings in New South Wales, Australia. Health professionals included Aboriginal Health Workers, nurses, general practitioners, and community workers. Interviews were conducted in 2019-2020 and explored participant perspectives of barriers and facilitators of optimal cancer care, particularly related to prevention, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment for Aboriginal people. Data were qualitatively analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

In general, participants perceived Aboriginal patients to have good access to preventive care. In terms of early detection and diagnosis, access to primary care, pathology, radiology, and some specialists (e.g. respiratory physicians) was seen as optimal. However, access to hospital-based gastroenterologists for colonoscopy was perceived to be poor due to long wait times. Access to optimal care for cancer treatment was perceived to be hindered due to the lack of bulk-billing for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cardiothoracic surgery. Other barriers to care identified by participants included unclear referral pathways, poor communication between patient and the treating team, and a lack of timely provision of discharge summaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitators of optimal care during treatment and survivorship included: the Integrated Team Care and Close the Gap programs, and presence of key health workers to help patients navigate the health system. The major barriers to quality cancer care for Aboriginal people appeared to be to specialist and procedural access, demonstrating that the 'Inverse Care' law applied in reducing access for populations at higher risk of cancer.

Rates of adherence to cancer treatment guidelines in Australia and the factors associated with adherence: A systematic review

Adherence to cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) varies enormously across Australia, despite being associated with improved patient outcomes. This systematic review aims to characterize adherence rates to active-cancer treatment CPGs in Australia and related factors to inform future implementation strategies. Five databases were systematically searched, abstracts were screened for eligibility, a full-text review and critical appraisal of eligible studies performed, and data extracted. A narrative synthesis of factors associated with adherence was conducted, and the median adherence rates within cancer streams calculated. A total of 21,031 abstracts were identified. After duplicates were removed, abstracts screened, and full texts reviewed, 20 studies focused on adherence to active-cancer treatment CPGs were included. Overall adherence rates ranged from 29% to 100%. Receipt of guideline recommended treatments was higher for patients who were younger (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], colorectal, lung, and breast cancer); female (breast and lung cancer), and male (DLBCL and colorectal cancer); never smokers (DLBCL and lung cancer); non-Indigenous Australians (cervical and lung cancer); with less advanced stage disease (colorectal, lung, and cervical cancer), without comorbidities (DLBCL, colorectal, and lung cancer); with good-excellent Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (lung cancer); living in moderately accessible places (colon cancer); and; treated in metropolitan facilities (DLBLC, breast and colon cancer). This review characterized active-cancer treatment CPG adherence rates and associated factors in Australia. Future targeted CPG implementation strategies should account for these factors, to redress unwarranted variation particularly in vulnerable populations, and improve patient outcomes (Prospero number: CRD42020222962).

Development and validation of an HPV infection knowledge assessment scale among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

Background

An increased incidence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection and its related cancers has been observed in recent years. Correct knowledge about HPV infection can lead to a significant decrease in transmission and a subsequent increase in vaccine uptake. Awareness and behavioural perception towards HPV infections are critical for improving HPV vaccination rates among Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Peoples. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no instrument designed to measure knowledge about HPV infection that is culturally appropriate and validated among Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander People.

Aim

To address this research gap, this paper aims to examine the psychometric properties of the HPV Knowledge Tool (HPV-KT) in an Indigenous population sample from South Australia.

Methodology

Data from 747 Indigenous Australian Adults who participated in the 12-month follow-up of the HPV and Oropharyngeal Carcinoma in Indigenous Australians Study was utilised for this study. The psychometric properties examined included1) dimensionality and item redundancy; (2) network loadings; (3) model fit; (4) criterion validity; and (5) reliability. The network model was estimated using the Graphical Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selector Operator (GLASSO). Evaluation of the HPV-KT (10 items) dimensionality and item redundancy was conducted within the framework of Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA). Reliability was evaluated with the McDonald's Omega (ω) coefficient.

Results

After the exclusion of two items, the HPV-KT exhibited good psychometric properties for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Peoples. The two dimensions of "General HPV Knowledge" and "Commonness of HPV" were identified. The dimension of "Commonness of HPV" displayed poor reliability, so a sum score for this subscale is not recommended (i.e. the items can still be used individually) The network model of the 7-item HPV-KT was fitted in the validation sample and model fit was adequate (x2 (7) = 17.17, p < 0.016; CFI = 0.980; TLI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.063, 90% CI = 0.025-0.010). Furthermore, the reliability of the "General HPV Knowledge" subscale (ω = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72-0.79), while the reliability of the "Commonness of HPV" subscale (ω = 0.58, 95% CI0.58-0.88) was poor.

Conclusion

The HPV-KT was adapted for an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander population and is readily available for future use in Australia. The addition of items assessing specifications of HPV infection, natural history and behaviour will improve the reliability and usability to assess the level of accurate knowledge about HPV infection. Future studies should investigate the possibility of developing new items for the dimension 'Commonness of HPV'.

Clinical practice guideline adherence in oncology: A qualitative study of insights from clinicians in Australia

BACKGROUND

The burden of cancer is large in Australia, and rates of cancer Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) adherence is suboptimal across various cancers.

METHODS

The objective of this study is to characterise clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to cancer CPG adherence in Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data from 33 oncology-focused clinicians (surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and haematologists). Clinicians were recruited in 2019 and 2020 through purposive and snowball sampling from 7 hospitals across Sydney, Australia, and interviewed either face-to-face in hospitals or by phone. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken. Human research ethics committee approval and governance approval was granted (2019/ETH11722, #52019568810127).

RESULTS

Five broad themes and subthemes of key barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment CPG adherence were identified: Theme 1: CPG content; Theme 2: Individual clinician and patient factors; Theme 3: Access to, awareness of and availability of CPGs; Theme 4: Organisational and cultural factors; and Theme 5: Development and implementation factors. The most frequently reported barriers to adherence were CPGs not catering for patient complexities, being slow to be updated, patient treatment preferences, geographical challenges for patients who travel large distances to access cancer services and limited funding of CPG recommended drugs. The most frequently reported facilitators to adherence were easy accessibility, peer review, multidisciplinary engagement or MDT attendance, and transparent CPG development by trusted, multidisciplinary experts. CPGs provide a reassuring framework for clinicians to check their treatment plans against. Clinicians want cancer CPGs to be frequently updated utilising a wiki-like process, and easily accessible online via a comprehensive database, coordinated by a well-trusted development body.

CONCLUSION

Future implementation strategies of cancer CPGs in Australia should be tailored to consider these context-specific barriers and facilitators, taking into account both the content of CPGs and the communication of that content. The establishment of a centralised, comprehensive, online database, with living wiki-style cancer CPGs, coordinated by a well-funded development body, along with incorporation of recommendations into point-of-care decision support would potentially address many of the issues identified.

Adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of cancers in Australia and the factors associated with adherence: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesise the latest evidence to support clinical and patient decision-making. CPG adherent care is associated with improved patient survival outcomes; however, adherence rates are low across some cancer streams in Australia. Greater understanding of specific barriers to cancer treatment CPG adherence is warranted to inform future implementation strategies.This paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that aims to determine cancer treatment CPG adherence rates in Australia across a variety of common cancers, and to identify any factors associated with adherence to those CPGs, as well as any associations between CPG adherence and patient outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Five databases will be searched, Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, for eligible studies evaluating adherence rates to cancer treatment CPGs in Australia. A team of reviewers will screen the abstracts in pairs according to predetermined inclusion criteria and then review the full text of eligible studies. All included studies will be assessed for quality and risk of bias. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction template. The frequency or rate of adherence to CPGs, factors associated with adherence to those CPGs and any reported patient outcome rates (eg, relative risk ratios or 5-year survival rates) associated with adherence to CPGs will be described. If applicable, a pooled estimate of the rate of adherence will be calculated by conducting a random-effects meta-analysis. The systematic review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval will not be required, as this review will present anonymised data from other published studies. Results from this study will form part of a doctoral dissertation (MB), will be published in a journal, presented at conferences, and other academic presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020222962.

Lung, breast and bowel cancer treatment for Aboriginal people in New South Wales: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Aboriginal Australians have higher cancer mortality than non-Aboriginal Australians. Lower rates of cancer treatment among Aboriginal people can contribute to this.

AIMS

To investigate demographic, clinical and access factors associated with lung, breast and bowel cancer treatment for Aboriginal people compared with non-Aboriginal people in New South Wales, Australia.

METHODS

Population-based cohort study using linked routinely collected datasets, including all diagnoses of primary lung, breast or bowel cancer from January 2009 to June 2012. Treatment (surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy) within 6 months from diagnosis was measured. Access was measured using minimum distance to radiotherapy or hospital with a cancer-specific multidisciplinary team, visit to a specialist and possession of private health insurance. Logistic regression modelling was employed.

RESULTS

There were 587 Aboriginal and 34 015 non-Aboriginal people diagnosed with cancer. For lung cancer, significantly fewer Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal people received surgery (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.73, P < 0.001) or any treatment (surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy; odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.88, P = 0.006) after adjusting for sex, age, disease extent and comorbidities. They were less likely to have an attendance with a surgeon (27.0%, 62/230 vs 33.3%, 2865/8597, P = 0.04) compared with non-Aboriginal people. There were no significant differences in cancer treatment for Aboriginal people compared with non-Aboriginal people for breast or bowel cancers after adjusting for patient sex, age, disease extent and comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Aboriginal people were significantly less likely to receive surgery for lung cancer than non-Aboriginal people and had fewer attendances with a surgeon, suggesting a need to strengthen referral pathways.

Study protocol: Yarning about HPV Vaccination: a qualitative study of factors influencing HPV vaccination among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adolescents in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience a higher burden of cervical cancer than non-Indigenous women in Australia. Cervical cancer is preventable partly through human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination; in Australia, this is delivered through the national school-based immunisation programme. While HPV vaccination uptake is high among Australian adolescents, there remain gaps in uptake and completion among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adolescents. This study aims to gain a comprehensive understanding of the barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination uptake and completion among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adolescents in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be guided by an Indigenist research approach and an ecological model for health promotion. Yarning, a qualitative Indigenous research method, will be conducted in up to 10 schools. Participants will include Year 7 (12/13 years old) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adolescents; parents/caregivers; and local key informants and immunisation programme partners involved in the delivery of school-based HPV immunisation programme. Participants will be recruited through school representatives and investigator networks using purposive and snowball sampling and samples of convenience. Field notes, HPV vaccination clinic observations and sequential diagramming of the HPV vaccination process will be conducted. Thematic analysis of data will be led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers. Synthesised sequential diagrams of the process of HPV vaccination and qualitative themes summarising key findings will be produced.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales Ethics Committee (1646/20), the Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC, 2020/478), the HREC of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (19-3484) and the Townsville Hospital and Health Service HREC (HREC/QTHS/73789) have approved the study. Dissemination will occur via conferences and peer-reviewed publications. Further dissemination will be determined in partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Steering Committee, including Youth Representatives and Consultation Network.

Achieving cervical cancer elimination among Indigenous women

Achieving the World Health Organisation (WHO) cervical cancer elimination target of fewer than four new cases per 100,000 woman-years requires scaling up HPV vaccination of girls, cervical screening, and pre-cancer and cancer treatment. We reviewed data from four high-income colonised countries (Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), and the United States (US)) to identify how each is currently performing compared to the cervical cancer incidence elimination and triple-intervention targets, nationally and in Indigenous women. We also summarise barriers and enablers to meeting targets for Indigenous women. To achieve elimination, cervical cancer incidence must be reduced by 74% in Indigenous women in Australia, and 63% in Maori women in NZ; data were not published in sufficient detail to compare incidence in Indigenous women in Canada or the US to the WHO target. Only Australia meets the vaccination coverage target, but uptake appears comparatively equitable within Australia, NZ and the US, whereas there appears to be a substantial gap in Canada. Screening coverage is lower for Indigenous women in all four countries though the differential varies by country. Currently, only Australia universally offers HPV-based screening. Data on pre-cancer and cancer treatment were limited in all countries. Large inequities in cervical cancer currently exist for Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US, and elimination is not on track for all women in these countries. Current data gaps hinder improvements. These countries must urgently address their systemic failure to care and provide health care for Indigenous women.

Cancer treatment and the risk of cancer death among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal South Australians: analysis of a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have poorer cancer outcomes than other Australians. Comparatively little is known of the type and amount of cancer treatment provided to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the consequences for cancer survival. This study quantifies the influence of surgical, systemic and radiotherapy treatment on risk of cancer death among matched cohorts of cancer cases and, the comparative exposure of cohorts to these treatments.

METHODS

Cancers registered among Aboriginal South Australians in 1990-2010 (N = 777) were matched with randomly selected non-Indigenous cases by sex, birth and diagnostic year, and primary site, then linked to administrative cancer treatment for the period from 2 months before to 13 months after diagnosis. Competing risk regression summarised associations of Indigenous status, geographic remoteness, comorbidities, cancer stage and treatment exposure with risk of cancer death.

RESULTS

Fewer Aboriginal cases had localised disease at diagnosis (37.2% versus 50.2%) and they were less likely to: experience hospitalisation with cancer diagnosis, unadjusted odds ratio (UOR) = 0.76; 95%CI = 0.59-0.98; have surgery UOR = 0.65; 95%CI = 0.53-0.80; systemic therapies UOR = 0.64; 95%CI = 0.52-0.78; or radiotherapy, UOR = 0.76; 95%CI = 0.63-0.94. Localised disease carried lower risk of cancer death compared to advanced cases receiving surgery or systemic therapies, SHR = 0.34; 95%CI = 0.25-0.47 and SHR = 0.35; 95%CI = 0.25-0.48. Advanced disease and no treatment carried higher risk of cancer death, SHR = 1.82; 95%CI = 1.26-2.63.

CONCLUSION

The effects of treatment did not differ between Aboriginal and non-Indigenous cohorts. However, comparatively less exposure to surgical and systemic treatments among Aboriginal cancer cases further complicated the disadvantages associated with geographic remoteness, advanced stage of disease and co-morbid conditions at diagnosis and add to disparities in cancer death. System level responses to improving access, utilisation and quality of effective treatments are needed to improve survival after cancer diagnosis.

An exploration of healthcare providers' experiences and perspectives of Traditional and complementary medicine usage and disclosure by Indigenous cancer patients

Background

Traditional and complementary medicines (T&CM) are any form of medicine, practice, treatment, product, technology, knowledge system or ceremony outside of conventional medical practice that aims to prevent and/or treat illness and/or promote well-being. Alongside conventional cancer treatments, T&CM usage is increasing; with 19% of indigenous Australians with cancer reporting using T&CM. There is limited evidence surrounding T&CM use and disclosure by indigenous patients. Our aim was to explore healthcare providers’ views about usage, disclosure/non-disclosure of T&CM by Indigenous cancer patients.

Methods

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 18 healthcare providers, including three indigenous providers, at a large urban hospital providing care to Indigenous cancer patients were conducted to explore providers’ experiences and attitudes towards T&CM use by Indigenous cancer patients. An interpretive phenomenological approach was used to thematically analyse the data.

Results

Analysis revealed six themes: concern about risk; no ‘real’ benefits; perception of T&CM and conventional medicine as antithetical; barriers to disclosure; ‘patients’ choice’ a double-edged sword; and providers’ lack of knowledge about T&CM. Healthcare providers perceived discord between T&CM and conventional medicine. Most lacked knowledge of T&CM, and had concerns around negative-interactions with conventional treatments. They considered T&CM outside their role, citing this as reasoning for their lack of knowledge. Indigenous healthcare providers had greater understanding and openness towards T&CM.

Conclusions

Given the potential usage of T&CM by Indigenous cancer patients, providers need a more comprehensive understanding of T&CM in order to inform discussion and facilitate effective disclosure on this topic. If indigenous Australians with cancer feel that cancer care providers are unreceptive to discussing T&CM, patient care risks being compromised; particularly given the potential for negative interactions between T&CM and conventional cancer treatments. Fostering health care interactions where indigenous patients feel comfortable to discuss T&CM usage should be a priority for all cancer care services.

Comorbidity and cervical cancer survival of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian women: A semi-national registry-based cohort study (2003-2012)

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of comorbidity on cervical cancer survival in Australian women, including whether Indigenous women's higher prevalence of comorbidity contributes to their lower survival compared to non-Indigenous women.

METHODS

Data for cervical cancers diagnosed in 2003-2012 were extracted from six Australian state-based cancer registries and linked to hospital inpatient records to identify comorbidity diagnoses. Five-year cause-specific and all-cause survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Flexible parametric models were used to estimate excess cause-specific mortality by Charlson comorbidity index score (0,1,2+), for Indigenous women compared to non-Indigenous women.

RESULTS

Of 4,467 women, Indigenous women (4.4%) compared to non-Indigenous women had more comorbidity at diagnosis (score ≥1: 24.2% vs. 10.0%) and lower five-year cause-specific survival (60.2% vs. 76.6%). Comorbidity was associated with increased cervical cancer mortality for non-Indigenous women, but there was no evidence of such a relationship for Indigenous women. There was an 18% reduction in the Indigenous: non-Indigenous hazard ratio (excess mortality) when comorbidity was included in the model, yet this reduction was not statistically significant. The excess mortality for Indigenous women was only evident among those without comorbidity (Indigenous: non-Indigenous HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.9-3.4), indicating that factors other than those measured in this study are contributing to the differential. In a subgroup of New South Wales women, comorbidity was associated with advanced-stage cancer, which in turn was associated with elevated cervical cancer mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival was lowest for women with comorbidity. However, there wasn't a clear comorbidity-survival gradient for Indigenous women. Further investigation of potential drivers of the cervical cancer survival differentials is warranted.

IMPACT

The results highlight the need for cancer care guidelines and multidisciplinary care that can meet the needs of complex patients. Also, primary and acute care services may need to pay more attention to Indigenous Australian women who may not obviously need it (i.e. those without comorbidity).

Psychological distress among Indigenous Australian cancer survivors

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to identify the level of and factors associated with distress in 155 Indigenous Australian cancer survivors approximately 6 months post-diagnosis.

METHODS

The distress thermometer (DT) was used to assess clinically significant distress (defined as having a DT score ≥ 4). Logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with clinically significant distress.

RESULTS

The mean distress score was 2.7 (SD 2.9), with about one in three Indigenous cancer survivors reporting clinically significant distress (35%; n = 54). After adjusting for age and sex, clinically significant distress was more likely among those who were separated/divorced/widowed than those who were married (odds ratio (OR) = 2.99, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.21-7.35, p = 0.017) and less likely among those residing in remote areas than those in major cities (OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.08-0.71, p = 0.001) and in those receiving non-surgical treatment only compared with surgery only (OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.68, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased screening for distress in cancer care, this is, to our knowledge, the first published assessment of distress among Indigenous Australian cancer survivors. The characteristics of Indigenous cancer survivors associated with greater likelihood of clinically significant distress indicate at-risk subgroups who would benefit from screening and early intervention. Further research is required to identify the specific aetiologies of distress. Our findings indicate a need to identify psychological distress and for survivorship care to include culturally sensitive and tailored psychological support for Indigenous cancer survivors.

Barriers to lung cancer care: health professionals' perspectives

PURPOSE

Globally, lung cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Problematically, there is a wide variation in the management and survival for people with lung cancer and there is limited understanding of the reasons for these variations. To date, the views of health professionals across relevant disciplines who deliver such care are largely absent. The present study describes Australian health professionals' views about barriers to lung cancer care to help build a research and action agenda for improving lung cancer outcomes.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a multidisciplinary group of 31 Australian health professionals working in lung cancer care for an average of 16 years (range 1-35 yrs.; SD = 10.2) seeing a mean of 116 patients annually.

RESULTS

Three superordinate themes were identified: illness representations, cultural influences, and health system context. Illness representations included three themes: symptoms attributed as smoking-related but not cancer, health-related stigma, and therapeutic nihilism. Cultural influence themes included Indigenous health care preferences, language and communication, and sociodemographic factors. Health system context included lack of regional services and distance to treatment, poor care coordination, lack of effective screening methods, and health professional behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS

Fractured and locally isolated approaches routinely confound responses to the social, cultural and health system complexities that surround a diagnosis of lung cancer and subsequent treatment. Improving outcomes for this disadvantaged patient group will require government, health agencies, and the community to take an aggressive, integrated approach balancing health policy, treatment priorities, and societal values.