European Cancer Organisation's Inequalities Network: Putting Cancer Inequalities on the European Policy Map

Patients' perspectives on cancer care disparities in Central and Eastern European countries: experiencing taboos, misinformation and barriers in the healthcare system

Introduction

Despite the advancements in oncological medicine and research, cancer remains the second leading cause of death in Europe with Central and Eastern European countries, such as Slovakia and Croatia, showing the highest mortality rates and disparities in access to appropriate and comprehensive cancer care. Therefore, the primary aim of the current study is to investigate cancer patients' perspectives and experiences to understand the possible underlying reasons for cancer disparities.

Methods

Croatian cancer patients (n=15) and Slovak patients (n=11) were recruited through social media platforms, patients' organisations, and hospital websites and offered participation in online focus group discussions on perceived disparities, barriers or malfunctioning during and after their cancer journey. Transcripts of video and audio recordings of the interviews were translated and analysed using Thematic analysis.

Results

Six Croatian and five Slovak themes emerged from the focus group discussions highlighting encountered barriers and perceived disparities, as well as suggestions or unmet needs. Most of the themes are common to both groups, such as the lack of information and use of the internet, and the taboos regarding cancer or psycho-oncological support. However, some themes are specific to each group, for instance, Slovak cancer patients remarked the fact that they do not mind travelling to get treatment as long as they can be treated in the west of Slovakia, while Croatian patients highlighted the need for more information after the illness and the socioeconomic impact deriving from a cancer diagnosis.

Discussion

Urgent intervention is needed in addressing disparities in Central and Eastern Europe. Present results could inform dedicated guidelines or better resource allocation strategies to reduce disparities in cancer care and promote inclusive healthcare.

Shared decision making with breast cancer patients - does it work? Results of the cluster-randomized, multicenter DBCG RT SDM trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient engaging process advocated especially for preference-sensitive decisions, such as adjuvant treatment after breast cancer. An increasing call for patient engagement in decision making highlights the need for a systematic SDM approach. The objective of this trial was to investigate whether the Decision Helper (DH), an in-consultation patient decision aid, increases patient engagement in decisions regarding adjuvant whole breast irradiation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Oncologists at four radiotherapy units were randomized to practice SDM using the DH versus usual practice. Patient candidates for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery for node-negative breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was patient-reported engagement in the decision process assessed with the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (range 0-100, 4 points difference considered clinical relevant). Other endpoints included oncologist-reported patient engagement, decisional conflict, fear of cancer recurrence, and decision regret after 6 months.

RESULTS

Of the 674 included patients, 635 (94.2%) completed the SDM-Q-9. Patients in the intervention group reported higher level of engagement (median 80; IQR 68.9 to 94.4) than the control group (71.1; IQR 55.6 to 82.2; p < 0.0001). Oncologist-reported patient engagement was higher in the invention group (93.3; IQR 82.2 to 100) compared to control group (73.3; IQR 60.0 to 84.4) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patient engagement in medical decision making was significantly improved with the use of an in-consultation patient decision aid compared to standard. The DH on adjuvant whole breast irradiation is now recommended as standard of care in the Danish guideline.

Implementing the European code of cancer practice in rural settings

Existing evidence often indicates higher cancer incidence and mortality rates, later diagnosis, lower screening uptake and poorer long-term survival for people living in rural compared to more urbanised areas. Despite wide inequities and variation in cancer care and outcomes across Europe, much of the scientific literature explicitly exploring the impact of rurality on cancer continues to come from Australia and North America. The European Code of Cancer Practice or "The Code" is a citizen and patient-centred statement of the most salient requirements for good clinical cancer practice and has been extensively co-produced by cancer patients, cancer professionals and patient advocates. It contains 10 key overarching Rights that a cancer patient should expect from their healthcare system, regardless of where they live and has been strongly endorsed by professional and patient cancer organisations as well as the European Commission. In this article, we use these 10 fundamental Rights as a framework to argue that (i) the issues and needs identified in The Code are generally more profound for rural people with cancer; (ii) addressing these issues is also more challenging in rural contexts; (iii) interventions and support must explicitly account for the unique needs of rural residents living with and affected by cancer and (iv) new innovative approaches are urgently required to successfully overcome the challenges faced by rural people with cancer and their caregivers. Despite equitable healthcare being a key European policy focus, the needs of rural people living with cancer have largely been neglected.

Room to Improve: An Audit of In-Hospital End-of-Life Care for Oncology Patients in a Tertiary Cancer Centre in Ireland During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic compounded isolation for patients through social distancing measures and staff shortages. We were concerned about the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of care provided at end-of-life in 2021 in a national cancer centre, and instigated the first ever review of the care of the dying. Quality of care was assessed retrospectively using a validated instrument developed by the United Kingdom's National Quality Board. Sixty-six patient deaths occurred in our cancer centre in 2021. The 'risk of dying' was documented in 65.2% of records. Palliative care services were involved in 77%, and pastoral care in 10.6%. What was important to the patient was documented in 24.2%. The 'quality-of-death' score was satisfactory for most but poor in 21.2%. Our study prompted change, including appointment of an end-of-life coordinator, development of a checklist to ensure comprehensive communication, expansion of the end-of-life committee to include junior doctors, and regular audit.

Factors influencing the participation of groups identified as underserved in cervical cancer screening in Europe: a scoping review of the literature

Background

Cervical cancer is a preventable and inequitably distributed disease. Screening plays a vital role in prevention, but many women face barriers to participation. The aims of this scoping review, undertaken to inform the co-design of interventions to equitably increase screening uptake, were to: (1) identify barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening for underserved populations, and (2) identify and describe the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving participation in cervical cancer screening among underserved groups in Europe.

Methods

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies focusing on barriers and facilitators to cervical screening participation and interventions to improve uptake undertaken in Europe and published after 2000 were included. Four electronic databases were searched to identify relevant papers. Titles and abstracts were screened, full text reviewed, and key findings extracted. Data were extracted and analyzed according to different health system strata: system-wide (macro), service specific (meso) and individual/community specific (micro). Within these categories, themes were identified, and the population groups impacted were recorded. All findings are presented in accordance with (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

33 studies on barriers and facilitators and eight intervention studies met the inclusion criteria. Collectively, the findings of these studies presented a wide array of screening uptake barriers, facilitators, and interventions, predominantly related to screening service and individual/community factors. However, although diverse, certain core themes around information provision, prompts for participation and the need for inclusive spaces were apparent. Implementation of screening programs should focus on: (1) reducing identifiable barriers, (2) increasing public awareness, and (3) providing patient reminders and measures to promote engagement by healthcare providers.

Conclusion

There are many barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening and this review, nested within a larger study, will inform work to devise a solution alongside groups identified in three European countries.