Search

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) report disproportionally worse cancer mortality. Current global cancer control efforts focus predominantly on expanding access to multimodality treatment for patients, whereas less attention has been spent on implementing strategies to ensure sustained quality assessment and improvement across the cancer care continuum. The goal of this focused review was to examine specific resource barriers to the development and implementation of quality improvement programs in LMICs. In this article, we use a nonsystematic review process to discuss the existing literature on four resource barriers within the context of cancer care delivery in LMICs, focusing on staff, time allocated for quality improvement work, research infrastructure, and funding. We provide possible solutions to address these barriers and share examples of specific quality improvement initiatives implemented across different world regions. Possible solutions to address these resource barriers include investment in human resources by increasing recruitment and training of the workforce, engagement of medical trainees and patients in quality improvement work, establishment of cancer registries and electronic medical records, and prioritization by large international funding agencies to invest in quality improvement research in LMICs. This review highlights four prevalent resources barriers to quality improvement in LMICs. Using examples from Botswana, Colombia, India, and Rwanda, we demonstrate solutions that may help overcome these barriers.

Background Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles. Results Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier. Conclusions Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Recognizing the rising incidence, prevalence, and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has committed to expanding its engagement at a global level. In 2017, the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force sought to define the potential role for ASCO in supporting global oncology as an academic field. A set of recommendations to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline were created through a consensus-based process involving participation by a diverse group of global oncology and global health practitioners; these recommendations were then published. The recommendations included developing a set of global oncology competencies for trainees and faculty interested in a career in academic global oncology. Here, we describe the global oncology competencies developed by this task force. These competencies consist of knowledge and skills needed in general global health as well as cancer-specific care and research, including understanding global cancer health disparities, defining unique resources and needs in low- and middle-resource settings, and promoting international collaboration. Although the competencies were originally developed for US training programs, they are intended to be widely applicable globally. By formalizing the training of oncologists and supporting career pathways in the field of global oncology, we can make progress in achieving global equity in cancer care and control.

Traditional approaches for evaluating the impact of scientific research – mainly scholarship (i.e., publications, presentations) and grant funding – fail to capture the full extent of contributions that come from larger scientific initiatives. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) was developed to support more comprehensive evaluations of scientific endeavors, especially research designed to translate scientific discoveries into innovations in clinical or public health practice and policy-level changes. Here, we present the domains of the TSBM, including how it was expanded by researchers within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) program supported by the National Cancer Institute. Next, we describe five studies supported by the Penn ISC3, each focused on testing implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics to reduce key practice gaps in the context of cancer care and identify how each study yields broader impacts consistent with TSBM domains. These indicators include Capacity Building, Methods Development (within the Implementation Field) and Rapid Cycle Approaches, implementing Software Technologies, and improving Health Care Delivery and Health Care Accessibility. The examples highlighted here can help guide other similar scientific initiatives to conceive and measure broader scientific impact to fully articulate the translation and effects of their work at the population level.

BackgroundPatients with advanced cancer undergoing chemotherapy experience significant symptoms and declines in functional status, which are associated with poor outcomes. Remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs; symptoms) and step counts (functional status) may proactively identify patients at risk of hospitalization or death. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the association of (1) longitudinal PROs with step counts and (2) PROs and step counts with hospitalization or death. MethodsThe PROStep randomized trial enrolled 108 patients with advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancers undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy at a large academic cancer center. Patients were randomized to weekly text-based monitoring of 8 PROs plus continuous step count monitoring via Fitbit (Google) versus usual care. This preplanned secondary analysis included 57 of 75 patients randomized to the intervention who had PRO and step count data. We analyzed the associations between PROs and mean daily step counts and the associations of PROs and step counts with the composite outcome of hospitalization or death using bootstrapped generalized linear models to account for longitudinal data. ResultsAmong 57 patients, the mean age was 57 (SD 10.9) years, 24 (42%) were female, 43 (75%) had advanced gastrointestinal cancer, 14 (25%) had advanced lung cancer, and 25 (44%) were hospitalized or died during follow-up. A 1-point weekly increase (on a 32-point scale) in aggregate PRO score was associated with 247 fewer mean daily steps (95% CI –277 to –213; P

Objectives Narrative communication has demonstrated effectiveness in promoting positive health behaviours, delivering support and coping with complex decision-making. Formal research evaluating this intervention for cancer treatment in Africa is lacking. We aimed to develop, and assess acceptability and usability of survivor video narrative interventions for breast cancer treatment in Botswana.Design A pilot study design.Setting Single-centre, tertiary hospital, sub-Saharan Africa.Participants Eight women, ≥18 years old, with stages I–III breast cancer were enrolled for the video intervention. 106 women, ≥18 years old, with stages I–IV breast cancer viewed the narrative videos and 98 completed the acceptability and usability surveys.Intervention Survivor narrative videos were developed using the theory of planned behaviour and using a purposive sample of Batswana, Setswana-speaking, breast cancer survivors, who had completed systemic treatment and surgery with high rates of adherence to the prescribed treatment plan.Primary outcomes We assessed acceptability and usability among prospectively enrolled patients presenting for routine breast cancer care at Princess Marina Hospital in Botswana, using a 13-item survey.Results Participants expressed high acceptability and usability of the videos, including 99% (97/98) who strongly agreed/agreed that the video presentations were easy to understand, 92% (90/98) who would recommend to other survivors and 94% (92/98) who wished there were more videos. Additionally, 89% (87/98) agreed or strongly agreed that the one-on-one instruction on how to use the tablet was helpful and 87% (85/98) that the video player was easy to use.Conclusion Culturally appropriate survivor video narratives have high acceptability and usability among patients with breast cancer in Botswana. There is an opportunity to leverage this intervention in routine breast cancer care for treatment support. Future studies will test the implementation and effectiveness of narrative videos on a wider scale, including for patients being treated for other cancers.