Value in care: The contribution of supportive care to value-based lung cancer services-A qualitative semistructured interview study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite significant advances in the management of lung cancer, patients continue to experience a high burden of unmet need impacting quality of life and outcomes of care. Achieving value-based health care, where investment is targeted to services that deliver optimal experience and outcomes of care relative to the cost of delivering that care, requires attention to what people value most in meeting their needs. To date there has been little attention to what matters most to patients with lung cancer (i.e., what they value) as a component of achieving value-based cancer care. This qualitative study was undertaken to investigate components of care valued by people with lung cancer in Australia. METHODS: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews with 23 people with lung cancer. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling strategy from two metropolitan tertiary public health services. Data collected included demographic characteristics and patient perspectives regarding their priority concerns and components of care identified as most valuable in meeting their needs. Demographic characteristics of participants were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed thematically using Interpretive Description. RESULTS: Data analysis generated three key themes: valued components of care; benefits of receiving valued care components and consequences of missed opportunities for care. The components of care valued by patients reflect the core dimensions of cancer supportive care, with particular emphasis on ongoing opportunities for consultation (screening for unmet needs) and provision of person-centred information. The facilitation of trust between patients and their treating team, as a consequence of having these valued components evident in their care, was identified as a key characteristic of value-based care. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified valued components of care described by people with lung cancer. Importantly, the care components identified have been proven to improve access to and coordination of care, and demonstrate the importance of integrating supportive care into care provision to achieve value-based cancer care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was informed by perspectives of lung cancer patients who participated in semistructured interviews. We acknowledge that this contribution does not meet the criteria for patient and public involvement in research as defined by Health Expectations, but this study forms part of a larger program of cancer supportive care work being undertaken by this team, where comprehensive consumer engagement and co-design approaches are embedded in our work.

Development of consensus quality indicators for cancer supportive care: a Delphi study and pilot testing.

BACKGROUND: High quality supportive care is fundamental to achieve optimal health outcomes for people affected by cancer. Use of quality indicators provides comparative information for monitoring, management, and improvement of care within and across healthcare systems. The aim of this Australian study was to develop and test a minimum viable set of cancer supportive care quality indicators that would be feasible to implement and generate usable data for policy and practice. METHODS: A two-round, modified reactive Delphi process was employed firstto develop the proposed indicators. Participants with expertise in cancer control in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada rated their level of agreement on a 7-point Likert scale against criteria assessing the importance, feasibility, and usability of proposed indicators. Relative response frequencies were assessed against pre-specified consensus criteria and a ranking exercise, which delivered the list of proposed indicators. Draft indicators were then presented to a purposive sample of clinicial and health management staff via qualitative interviews at two acute care settings in Melbourne, Australia for feedback regarding feasibility. Desktop audits of online published health service policy and practice descriptions were also conducted at participating acute care settings to confirm health service data availability and feasibility of collection to report against proposed indicators. RESULTS: Sixteen quality indicators associated with the delivery of quality cancer supportive care in Australian acute healthcare settings met pre-specified criteria for inclusion. Indicators deemed 'necessary' were mapped and ranked across five key categories: Screening, Referrals, Data Management, Communication and Training, and Culturally Safe and Accessible Care. Testing confirmed indicators were viewed as feasible by clinical and health management staff, and desktop audits could provide a fast and reasonably effective method to assess general adherence and performance. CONCLUSIONS: The development of quality indicators specific to cancer supportive care provides a strong framework for measurement and monitoring, service improvement, and practice change with the potential to improve health outcomes for people affected by cancer. Evaluation of implementation feasibility of these expert consensus generated quality indicators is recommended.

Mapping the Lobbying Footprint of Harmful Industries: 23 Years of Data From OpenSecrets.

Policy Points Our research reveals the similarities and differences among the lobbying activities of tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and ultraprocessed food industries, which are often a barrier to the implementation of public health policies. Over 23 years, we found that just six organizations dominated lobbying expenses in the tobacco and alcohol sectors, whereas the gambling sector outsourced most of their lobbying to professional firms. Databases like OpenSecrets are a useful resource to monitor the commercial determinants of health. CONTEXT: Commercial lobbying is often a barrier to the development and implementation of public health policies. Yet, little is known about the similarities and differences in the lobbying practices of different industry sectors or types of commercial actors. This study compares the lobbying practices of four industry sectors that have been the focus of much public health research and advocacy: tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and ultraprocessed foods. METHODS: Data on lobbying expenditures and lobbyist backgrounds were sourced from the OpenSecrets database, which monitors lobbying in the United States. Lobbying expenditure data were analyzed for the 1998-2020 period. We classified commercial actors as companies or trade associations. We used Power BI software to link, analyze, and visualize data sets. FINDINGS: We found that the ultraprocessed food industry spent the most on lobbying ($1.15 billion), followed by gambling ($817 million), tobacco ($755 million), and alcohol ($541 million). Overall, companies were more active than trade associations, with associations being least active in the tobacco industry. Spending was often highly concentrated, with two organizations accounting for almost 60% of tobacco spending and four organizations accounting for more than half of alcohol spending. Lobbyists that had formerly worked in government were mainly employed by third-party lobby firms. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows how comparing the lobbying practices of different industry sectors offers a deeper appreciation of the diversity and similarities of commercial actors. Understanding these patterns can help public health actors to develop effective counterstrategies.

Clinical Utility Assessment of a Nursing Checklist Identifying Complex Care Needs Due to Inequities Among Ambulatory Patients With Cancer: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer incidence, complex care needs, and poor health outcomes are largely driven by structural inequities stemming from social determinants of health. To date, no evidence-based clinical tool has been developed to identify newly diagnosed patients at risk of poorer outcomes. Specialist cancer nurses are well-positioned to ameliorate inequity of opportunity for optimal care, treatment, and outcomes through timely screening, assessment, and intervention. We designed a nursing complexity checklist (the "Checklist") to support these activities, with the ultimate goal of improving equitable experiences and outcomes of care. This study aims to generate evidence regarding the clinical utility of the Checklist. OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this study are to provide qualitative evidence regarding key aspects of the Checklist's clinical utility (appropriateness, acceptability, and practicability), informed by Smart's multidimensional model of clinical utility. Secondary objectives explore the predictive value of the Checklist and concordance between specific checklist items and patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: This prospective mixed methods case series study will recruit up to 60 newly diagnosed patients with cancer and 10 specialist nurses from a specialist cancer center. Nurses will complete the Checklist with patient participants. Within 2 weeks of Checklist completion, patients will complete 5 patient-reported outcome measures with established psychometric properties that correspond to specific checklist items and an individual semistructured interview to explore Checklist clinical utility. Interviews with nurses will occur 12 and 24 weeks after they first complete a checklist, exploring perceptions of the Checklist's clinical utility including barriers and facilitators to implementation. Data describing planned and unplanned patient service use will be collected from patient follow-up interviews at 12 weeks and the electronic medical record at 24 weeks after Checklist completion. Descriptive statistics will summarize operational, checklist, and electronic medical record data. The predictive value of the Checklist and the relationship between specific checklist items and relevant patient-reported outcome measures will be examined using descriptive statistics, contingency tables, measures of association, and plots as appropriate. Qualitative data will be analyzed using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: This study was approved by the institution's ethics committee. The enrollment period commenced in May 2022 and ended in November 2022. In total, 37 patients with cancer and 7 specialist cancer nurses were recruited at this time. Data collection is scheduled for completion at the end of May 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate key clinical utility dimensions of a nursing complexity checklist. It will also provide preliminary evidence on its predictive value and information to support its seamless implementation into everyday practice including, but not limited to, possible revisions to the Checklist, instructions, and training for relevant personnel. Future implementation of this Checklist may improve equity of opportunity of access to care for patients with cancer. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48432.

Availability and accessibility of services to address financial toxicity described by Australian lung cancer patients and healthcare professionals.

PURPOSE: Although the financial burden and impact of a cancer diagnosis has been widely described in international literature, less understood is the availability and accessibility of services to ameliorate this need. This study reports the experiences of Australian lung cancer patients and health professionals delivering care, regarding factors that exacerbate and mitigate financial stress, and availability and accessibility of services to support people following a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with twenty-three lung cancer patients attending two metropolitan tertiary health services and eleven health professionals delivering care were undertaken during July-August 2021. RESULTS: Neither health service systematically screened for financial toxicity nor routinely provided information regarding potential financial impacts during consultations. Patients experienced lengthy delays in accessing welfare supports, provoking financial stress and worry. Health professionals reported limited resources and referral services to support patients with financial need; this was especially problematic for patients with lung cancer. They described its psychological impact on patients and their family members or carers and warned of its impact on ability to adhere to treatment. CONCLUSION: Available and accessibility of services addressing financial toxicity in Australian lung cancer patients is inadequate. Although financial stress is a common, distressing problem, health professionals feel hampered in their ability to help due to limited service availability. Left unaddressed, financial toxicity can impact treatment adherence, directly influencing health outcomes, and increase risk of poverty, amplifying social inequities. Findings highlight opportunity for actionable interventions like financial consent and routine screening and discussion of financial toxicity across care pathways.

Listening to What Matters Most: Consumer Endorsed Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Use in Multiple Myeloma Clinical Trials: A Descriptive Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) experience some of the highest levels of symptom burden of all hematological malignancies. Therefore, assessment of quality of life (QoL) is critical for the delivery of patient-centered cancer care. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to measure QoL in people with MM. However, it is unknown whether measures used, are appropriate and informative to address issues that matter most to patients. AIM: This exploratory study was designed to establish consumer endorsed PROMs to measure QoL in people with MM. METHOD: This was a descriptive, exploratory study. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the acceptability, appropriateness, and practicability of ten commonly used PROMs via telephone-based, semi-structured interviews and surveys. Data were analyzed using a manifest content analysis approach and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 26 individuals participated in the study. Participants emphasized the importance of selecting a suite of PROMs that captures the diversity of quality-of-life experiences and priorities reported over the course of treatment, while minimizing the burden of completing PROMs. Based on these criteria, a suite of three PROMs - the MyPOS, the Brief Fatigue Inventory, and COST-FACIT were endorsed by study participants. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to establish a suite of consumer-endorsed PROMs for use in clinical trials in patients with MM. Ensuring that the patient voice is at the center of advances in cancer treatment is a hallmark of quality cancer care.

Refocusing cancer supportive care: a framework for integrated cancer care.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer supportive care comprises an integrative field of multidisciplinary services necessary for people affected by cancer to manage the impact of their disease and treatment and achieve optimal health outcomes. The concept of supportive care, largely driven by Margaret Fitch's seminal supportive care framework, was developed with the intent to provide health service planners with a conceptual platform to plan and deliver services. However, over time, this concept has been eroded, impacting implementation and practice of supportive care. This study therefore aimed to examine expert contemporary views of supportive care with the view to refocusing the definition and conceptual framework of cancer supportive care to enhance relevance to present-day cancer care. METHODS: A two-round online modified reactive Delphi survey was employed to achieve consensus regarding terminology to develop a contemporary conceptual framework. A listing of relevant cancer supportive care terms identified through a scoping review were presented for assessment by experts. Terms that achieved ≥ 75% expert agreement as 'necessary' were then assessed using Theory of Change (ToC) to develop consensus statements and a conceptual framework. RESULTS: A total of 55 experts in cancer control with experience in developing, advising on, delivering, or receiving supportive care in cancer took part in the Delphi surveys. Expert consensus assessed current terminology via Delphi round 1, with 124 terms deemed relevant and 'necessary' per pre-specified criteria. ToC was applied to consensus terms to develop three key statements of definition, and a comprehensive conceptual framework, which were presented for expert consensus review in Delphi round 2. CONCLUSION: Finalised definitions and conceptual framework are strongly aligned with relevant international policy and advocacy documents, and strengthen focus on early identification, timely intervention, multidisciplinary collaboration, and end-to-end, cross-sector, cancer supportive care.

Social return on investment economic evaluation of supportive care for lung cancer patients in acute care settings in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Unmanaged consequences of cancer and its treatment are high among patients with lung cancer and their informal carers, resulting in avoidable healthcare use and financial burden. Provision of cancer supportive care addressing the impacts of cancer and its treatment has demonstrated efficacy in mitigating these consequences; however, globally, there is a lack of investment in these services. Paucity of robust economic evidence regarding benefit of cancer supportive care has limited policy impact and allocation of resources. This study therefore utilised a Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology to conduct a forecast evaluation of lung cancer supportive care services, to ascertain potential social value and return on investment. METHODS: An SROI economic evaluation model was developed using qualitative stakeholder consultations synthesised with published evidence to develop the inputs, outcomes and financial value associated with the delivery of a hypothetical model of quality lung cancer supportive care services over a one and five year period. SROI ratios were generated to determine the social value and cost savings associated per every $1AUD invested in cancer supportive care for both the healthcare system and patients. Deadweight, drop off and attribution were calculated, and sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the stability of the model. RESULTS: The value generated from modelled supportive care service investments in a one-year period resulted in an SROI ratio of 1:9; that is, for every dollar invested in supportive care, AUD$9.00 social return is obtained when savings to the healthcare system and benefits to the patients are combined. At five-years, these same investments resulted in greater cumulative value generated for both the patient and the healthcare system, with a SROI ratio of 1:11. CONCLUSION: Our study provides strong evidence for policy makers, clinicians and consumers to advocate for further investment in cancer supportive care, as demonstrated cost savings could be achieved through implementation of the proposed supportive care service model, with these accruing over a five-year period. The SROI model provides a comprehensive framework detailing supportive care services and the health workforce necessary to achieve value-based outcomes for patients and the healthcare system.

Trained Cohorts of University Students are a Useful Resource for Conducting Dietary Surveys in Mongolia.

BACKGROUND: Population-based dietary assessment is important for informing national nutrition policy. The developing country setting presents challenges for robust implementation of dietary surveys, yet effective nutrition interventions are often urgently required. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a low-cost approach to epidemiologic dietary assessment in Mongolia, involving the use of large cohorts of local public health and medical students as research assistants for collecting diet records. METHODS: From 2011 to 2016, over 200 Mongolian medical and public health university students were trained to collect paired summer and winter 3-day weighed diet records from urban and rural study populations across the geographic expanse of Mongolia. Students were supervised during data collection, and their performance and experience during training and data collection were qualitatively evaluated from their own perspectives as well as those of the investigators. RESULTS: Students collected detailed and thorough diet records and generally reported positive feedback regarding training and data collection. Frequent supervision of students during data collection proved to be extremely worthwhile. While rural participants were amenable to having students follow them, students faced several challenges in assessing the diets of urban participants. These challenges may best be addressed by separately training these participants beforehand. CONCLUSIONS: With adequate training and supervision, university students may be a useful and cost-effective resource for large-scale dietary surveys in regions where their use would be practical and culturally appropriate. Further research is warranted to study how well this approach may be adapted outside Mongolia and to other dietary assessment methods and technologies.