Challenges and solutions to cancer-related financial toxicity according to Australian health professionals: qualitative results from a national survey.

PURPOSE: To qualitatively explore Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on how to improve the care and management of cancer-related financial toxicity, including relevant practices, services, and unmet needs. METHODS: We invited healthcare professionals (HCP) who currently provide care to people with cancer within their role to complete an online survey, which was distributed via the networks of Australian clinical oncology professional associations/organisations. The survey was developed by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia's Financial Toxicity Working Group and contained 12 open-ended items which we analysed using descriptive content analysis and NVivo software. RESULTS: HCPs (n = 277) believed that identifying and addressing financial concerns within routine cancer care was important and most believed this to be the responsibility of all HCP involved in the patient's care. However, financial toxicity was viewed as a "blind spot" within a medical model of healthcare, with a lack of services, resources, and training identified as barriers to care. Social workers reported assessment and advocacy were part of their role, but many reported lacking formal training and understanding of financial complexities/laws. HCPs reported positive attitudes towards transparent discussions of costs and actioning cost-reduction strategies within their control, but feelings of helplessness when they perceived no solution was available. CONCLUSION: Identifying financial needs and providing transparent information about cancer-related costs was viewed as a cross-disciplinary responsibility, however, a lack of training and services limited the provision of support. Increased cancer-specific financial counselling and advocacy, via dedicated roles or developing HCPs' skills, is urgently needed within the healthcare system.

Opinions and strategies of Australian health professionals on tackling cancer-related financial toxicity: A nationwide survey.

AIM: To understand the opinions and current practices of health professionals on the topic of addressing cancer-related financial toxicity among patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed through Australian clinical oncology professional organizations/networks. The multidisciplinary Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Financial Toxicity Working Group developed 25 questions relating to the frequency and comfort levels of patient-clinician discussions, opinions about their role, strategies used, and barriers to providing solutions for patients. Descriptive statistics were used and subgroup analyses were undertaken by occupational groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven health professionals completed the survey. The majority were female (n = 213, 77%), worked in public facilities (200, 72%), and treated patients with varied cancer types across all of Australia. Most participants agreed that it was appropriate in their clinical role to discuss financial concerns and 231 (88%) believed that these discussions were an important part of high-quality care. However, 73 (28%) stated that they did not have the appropriate information on support services or resources to facilitate such conversations, differing by occupation group; 7 (11%) social workers, 34 (44%) medical specialists, 18 (25%) nurses, and 14 (27%) of other occupations. Hindrances to discussing financial concerns were insufficient resources or support systems to refer to, followed by lack of time in a typical consultation. CONCLUSION: Health professionals in cancer care commonly address the financial concerns of their patients but attitudes differed across occupations about their role, and frustrations were raised about available solutions. Resources supporting financial-related discussions for all health professionals are urgently needed to advance action in this field.

Development of an Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Clinical Quality Registry: a protocol paper.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, comprising the largest national cancer disease burden in Australia and New Zealand. Regional reports identify substantial evidence-practice gaps, unwarranted variation from best practice, and variation in processes and outcomes of care between treating centres. The Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Registry (ANZLCR) will be developed as a Clinical Quality Registry to monitor the safety, quality and effectiveness of lung cancer care in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patient participants will include all adults >18 years of age with a new diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, thymoma or mesothelioma. The ANZLCR will register confirmed diagnoses using opt-out consent. Data will address key patient, disease, management processes and outcomes reported as clinical quality indicators. Electronic data collection facilitated by local data collectors and local, state and federal data linkage will enhance completeness and accuracy. Data will be stored and maintained in a secure web-based data platform overseen by registry management. Central governance with binational representation from consumers, patients and carers, governance, administration, health department, health policy bodies, university research and healthcare workers will provide project oversight. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ANZLCR has received national ethics approval under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme. Data will be routinely reported to participating sites describing performance against measures of agreed best practice and nationally to stakeholders including federal, state and territory departments of health. Local, regional and (bi)national benchmarks, augmented with online dashboard indicator reporting will enable local targeting of quality improvement efforts.

Living with and beyond metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: the survivorship experience for people treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy (IT) and targeted therapy (TT) have improved survival for some patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Their lived experience is under-studied. We conducted a single centre, qualitative study to understand concerns and unmet needs amongst this novel survivor population. METHODS: Eligible participants had metastatic NSCLC, aged >18, English-speaking and >6 months post initiation of IT/TT without progressive disease. Semi-structured interviews focused on physical, psychological, social and functional impacts of diagnosis, therapy and prognosis. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed via qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Between May and December 2019, 20 participants were interviewed: median age 62 (range 34-83), 13 (65%) female; median time since diagnosis of metastatic NSCLC 27 months (range 10-108). Twelve out of 20 (60%) participants had a targetable mutation (EGFR/ALK/BRAF); 6 were receiving IT, 11 TT, 2 IT + chemotherapy and 1 IT + TT. Four main themes were identified: living long-term on IT and TT (chronic toxicities), psychological concerns (living with uncertainty, fear of cancer progression, scan-related anxiety), support with practical issues (finances, employment amidst prognostic uncertainty, challenges with trial participation) and wanting information pertinent to NSCLC subtype. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term survivors of metastatic NSCLC experience significant physical, psychological and functional concerns and unmet needs. Results will inform a broader cross-sectional survey and resources to address the needs of this growing survivor group. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: A 'one-size-fits-all' approach to NSCLC survivorship is no longer appropriate. Survivors of metastatic NSCLC treated with novel therapies may benefit from specific information regarding long-term toxicities and psychological supports.