Search

Rationale, aims, and objectives: Increasing the appropriateness of prescribing has long been a focus of government, non‐government, and professional organizations. Progress towards this is made difficult by the fact appropriate prescribing remains inconsistently defined and is the subject of ongoing intense disagreement. In this study, we attempted to understand why this is the case within the context of oncology and haematology. Methods: We performed a qualitative empirical analysis of semi‐structured interviews with 16 Australian oncologists and haematologists. Results: We found that oncologists framed appropriate prescribing in terms of the following inter‐related, and at times opposed, values: civic mindedness, hope and compassion, realism, and virtue in motivation. Conclusions: These values cannot be ranked a priori, and therefore, any definition of appropriate prescribing must be aligned with what communities want from their health system. When one value is privileged over another in any specific context, a compelling argument must be provided to justify the choice. In an era of shared decision making, patient rights, and high‐cost medicines, we need to reassess what we mean by appropriate prescribing in cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prescribing of high‐cost cancer medicines at the end of life has become a focus of criticism, due primarily to concerns about the safety, efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of these medicines in this clinical context. In response to these concerns, a number of interventions have been proposed – frequently focused on improving physician–patient communication at the end of life. Underpinning these strategies is the assumption that the prescribing of high‐cost cancer medicines at the end of life is primarily the result of poor communication on the part of cancer physicians. In this paper, we explore the factors perceived by cancer physicians to be driving the use of high‐cost cancer medicines at the end of life. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews with 16 Australian oncologists and haematologists, we demonstrate that these physicians believe that the use of high‐cost medicines at the end of life is driven by multiple factors – including individual, interpersonal, socio‐cultural and public policy influences. We conclude that these factors, and their interactions, need to be taken into account in the development of public policy and clinical interventions to address the use of high‐cost medicines at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the efforts of Australian government to improve access to cancer medicines in the country. It mentions about the report titled 'Availability of New, Innovative and Specialist Cancer Drugs in Australia' released by the Senate that emphasizes on the health burden of cancer in the country.