Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify the level of and factors associated with distress in 155 Indigenous Australian cancer survivors approximately 6 months post-diagnosis.Methods: The distress thermometer (DT) was used to assess clinically significant distress (defined as having a DT score ≥ 4). Logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with clinically significant distress.Results: The mean distress score was 2.7 (SD 2.9), with about one in three Indigenous cancer survivors reporting clinically significant distress (35%; n = 54). After adjusting for age and sex, clinically significant distress was more likely among those who were separated/divorced/widowed than those who were married (odds ratio (OR) = 2.99, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.21-7.35, p = 0.017) and less likely among those residing in remote areas than those in major cities (OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.08-0.71, p = 0.001) and in those receiving non-surgical treatment only compared with surgery only (OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.68, p = 0.008).Conclusions: Despite increased screening for distress in cancer care, this is, to our knowledge, the first published assessment of distress among Indigenous Australian cancer survivors. The characteristics of Indigenous cancer survivors associated with greater likelihood of clinically significant distress indicate at-risk subgroups who would benefit from screening and early intervention. Further research is required to identify the specific aetiologies of distress. Our findings indicate a need to identify psychological distress and for survivorship care to include culturally sensitive and tailored psychological support for Indigenous cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indigenous patient navigator (IPN) programmes show promise in addressing barriers to cancer care and facilitation of patient self‐efficacy. The purpose of this paper is to describe and reflect upon the experience of training an IPN and implementation of the intervention in the Australian context with Indigenous cancer patients. Randomised clinical trial might provide the best available evaluation measure of an intervention but caution should be taken in the implementation process. Socio‐cultural aspects and training can affect the conduct of this type of intervention. We report here five issues needing consideration prior to implementing such intervention. Specifically: (1) recognition of the collective bonds within Indigenous community and understanding by IPN of the degree of personal assistance perceived as not intrusive by the patient; (2) conduct ongoing evaluation of the different role of an IPN involved in this intervention care provider vs. researcher. (3) meaningful engagement develops from a trusting/collaborative relationship between research team and study site staff which may not occur in the study time frame; (4) existing skills as well as training provided may not translate in the IPN understanding and aligning with the study objectives/research values; (5) recruitment of participants requires innovative and highly flexible strategies to be successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Indigenous Australians have a higher cancer incidence, worse mortality and are less likely to receive optimal cancer treatment compared with non-Indigenous Australians. Culturally appropriate supportive care helps ensure that Indigenous patients engage in and receive optimal care. However, many existing supportive care needs tools lack cultural relevance for Indigenous people, and their feasibility with Indigenous people has not been demonstrated. The Supportive Care Needs Assessment Tool for Indigenous People (SCNAT-IP) assesses the unmet supportive care needs of Indigenous cancer patients.Purpose: This descriptive study evaluates the clinical implementation of the SCNAT-IP in routine care.Methods: Two large tertiary cancer treatment centres and two regional oncology clinics participated. Participants included 10 clinical staff and 36 adult Indigenous cancer patients (mean age 54 years). Patients and clinicians completed brief, purpose-designed questionnaires and interviews.Results: Patients reported high ratings (means >8/10) for acceptability, helpfulness and timing items. The majority (≥80%) of staff agreed that the SCNAT-IP was useful to clinical practice, should be used in routine care and was acceptable to their patients.Conclusions: The study provides empirical support for the feasibility and acceptability of the SCNAT-IP in routine cancer care with Indigenous Australians. Routine screening with the SCNAT-IP has the potential to improve cancer care for Indigenous people with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]