Nursing - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11
-
ItemCities as an Enabler for Strengthening Cancer Care(LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2021-06)
-
ItemDevelopment 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(BMC, 2021-03-23)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.
-
ItemAustralian Experiences of Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Burden Following a Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review(MDPI, 2021-03)(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.
-
ItemAssessing the implementation of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening in high-income countries(PAGEPRESS PUBL, 2020)Background: The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups. Design and Methods: The implementation framework by Proctor et al. was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the "real-world" environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established. Results: Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention. Conclusion: While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.
-
ItemThe impact of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review(SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2020)Background: High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results: Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions: This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.
-
Item
-
ItemDevelopment and testing of a guideline document to provide essential information for patient decision making regarding cancer clinical trials(WILEY, 2020-09)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.
-
ItemExperiences of barriers and facilitators to establishing and sustaining radiotherapy services in low- and middle-income countries: A qualitative study(WILEY, 2020-04)AIMS: The factors contributing to the establishment of high-quality radiotherapy services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are poorly understood. The aim was to identify and describe barriers and facilitators to establishing and sustaining high-quality and accessible radiotherapy services in LMICs based on the experience of successful and unsuccessful attempts. METHODS: An exploratory-descriptive qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews was undertaken. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit participants. The World Health Organization Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions Framework informed the interview guide. A constant comparative data analysis approach was adopted. FINDINGS: Seventeen participants were interviewed. Ten were working permanently in nine LMICs and seven were permanently employed in four high-income countries. Three themes were developed: committing to a vision of improving cancer care; making it happen and sustaining a safe service; and leveraging off radiotherapy to strengthen integrated cancer care. Identified barriers included lack of political leadership continuity, lack of a coordinated advocacy effort, non-Member State of the IAEA, lack of reliable epidemiological data, lack of a comprehensive budget and lack of local expertise. Facilitators identified included strong political support, vision champion, availability of a regulator, costed cancer control plan, diversified sources of funding, responsible project manager, adoption of evidence-based practice, strategic partnerships, motivation to provide patient-centered care, and availability of supportive technology. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the level of readiness to establish and sustain a radiotherapy service is highly recommended. Future research is recommended to develop a readiness assessment tool for radiotherapy services implementation at LMICs.
-
ItemHome-based rehabilitation in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer-the patient experience(SPRINGER, 2020-01)PURPOSE: Exercise is important in lung cancer, yet most people do not meet the physical activity guidelines. The aim of this study was to characterise the views and experiences of participants with inoperable lung cancer who completed a home-based rehabilitation program. METHODS: Ninety-two participants were recruited (45 intervention group [IG], 47 usual care). Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants randomised to the IG of a trial of home-based exercise, behaviour change and symptom management. Data were independently coded by two researchers, cross-checked and analysed using content analysis with a summary of arising themes. RESULTS: Of the IG (25/45), 55% were interviewed: mean (SD) age 67 (13) years; male 52%; disease stage n (%) III = 9 (36), IV = 11 (44); radical treatment intent n (%) 13 (52). The majority of participants reported program benefits, both in the physical domain (reduced sedentary time and improved strength, fitness and function) and the mental domain (motivation to keep healthy, preventing boredom). Support to self-manage symptoms was well received and many participants reported increased confidence in managing their symptoms. Exercise enablers included having expert health professional support; motivation to be stronger and better prepared for future challenges; and having an achievable and familiar program that was monitored. Treatment side-effects, pain from comorbidities and the weather were exercise barriers. For the majority of participants the use of a Fitbit™ activity tracker, text message exercise reminders and an exercise diary helped to promote adherence. CONCLUSIONS: This home-based rehabilitation program was acceptable to most participants with multiple benefits reported including improved fitness, motivation and ability to manage symptoms.
-
ItemDeveloping clinical indicators for oncology: the inaugural cancer care indicator set for the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards(WILEY, 2021-06)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.