Search

Abstract Introduction Indigenous Australians experience more aggressive cancers and higher cancer mortality rates than other Australians. Cancer patients undergoing treatment are likely to access health services (e.g. social worker, cancer helpline, pain management services). To date Indigenous cancer patients’ use of these services is limited. This paper describes the use of health services by Indigenous cancer patients. Methods Indigenous cancer patients receiving treatment were recruited at four major Queensland public hospitals (Royal Brisbane Women’s Hospital, Princess Alexandra, Cairns Base Hospital and Townsville Hospital). Participants were invited to complete a structured questionnaire during a face-to-face interview which sought information about their use of community and allied health services. Results Of the 157 patients interviewed most were women (54.1%), of Aboriginal descent (73.9%), lived outer regional areas (40.1%) and had a mean age of 52.2 years. The most frequent cancer types were breast cancer (22.3%), blood related (14.0%), lung (12.1%) and gastroenterological (10.8%). More than half of the participants reported using at least one of the ‘Indigenous Health Worker/Services’ (76.4%), ‘Allied Health Workers/Services’ (72.6%) and ‘Information Sources’ (70.7%). Younger participants 19–39 years were more likely to use information sources (81.0%) than older participants who more commonly used community services (48.8%). The cancer patients used a median of three health services groups while receiving cancer treatment. Conclusions Indigenous cancer patients used a range of health services whilst receiving treatment. Indigenous Health Workers/Services and Allied Health Workers/Services were the most commonly used services. However, there is a need for further systematic investigation into the health service utilization by Indigenous cancer patients.

Background: The Australian National Cervical Screening Program, introduced more than 20 years ago, does not record the Indigenous status of screening participants. This article reports the first population-based estimates of participation in cervical screening for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian women.Methods: This was a retrospective, population-based study of 1,334,795 female Queensland residents, aged 20 to 69 years, who participated in cervical screening from 2000 to 2011; 26,829 were identified as Indigenous through linkage to hospitalization records. Participation rates were calculated as the number of women screened divided by the average estimated resident population, with adjustments made for hysterectomies, for each 2-, 3-, and 5-year screening period. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were adjusted for age group, place of residence, and socioeconomic disadvantage.Results: In 2010-2011, the 2-year participation rate was 55.7% (95% CI, 55.6%-55.9%) for non-Indigenous women and 33.5% (95% CI, 32.9%-34.1%) for Indigenous women; this represented a decrease from 2000-2001 (57.7% [95% CI, 57.6%-57.9%] and 35.3% [95% CI, 34.5%-36.1%], respectively). The difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous women was greatest for those aged 45 to 49 years. The 3- and 5-year participation rates were higher within both groups, and the absolute differences between the 2 groups were larger. Significant interactions between the Indigenous status and the place of residence and socioeconomic disadvantage highlight that the Indigenous/non-Indigenous differential was evident in all places of residence except for very remote areas (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02) and was greatest in the most affluent areas (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.24-0.27).Conclusions: Indigenous Australian women participate less than non-Indigenous women, and this gap has not closed. These results provide important benchmarks for the new Australian cervical screening program commencing in 2017, which will provide opportunities to reduce inequities for Indigenous women and address longstanding data deficiencies in the collection of the Indigenous status. Cancer 2016;122:1560-9. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To examine the association between residential remoteness and stage of cancer at diagnosis, treatment uptake, and survival within the Australian Indigenous population. Design Systematic review and matched retrospective cohort study. Setting Australia. Participants Systematic review: published papers that included a comparison of cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment uptake, mortality and/or survival for Indigenous people across remoteness categories were identified (n = 181). Fifteen papers (13 studies) were included in the review. Original analyses: new analyses were conducted using data from the Queensland Indigenous Cancer Study (QICS) comparing cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment uptake, and survival for Indigenous cancer patients living in rural/remote areas (n = 627, 66%) and urban areas (n = 329, 34%). Main Outcome Measures Systematic review: Papers were included if there were related to stage of disease at diagnosis, treatment, mortality and survival of cancer. Restrictions were not placed on the outcome measures reported (e.g. standardised mortality ratios versus crude mortality rates). Original analyses: Odds ratios (OR, 95%CI) were used to compare stage of disease and treatment uptake between the two remoteness groups. Treatment uptake (treated/not treated) was analysed using logistic regression analysis. Survival was analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression. The final multivariate models included stage of cancer at diagnosis and area-level socioeconomic status (SEIFA). Results Existing evidence of variation in cancer outcomes for Indigenous people in remote compared with metropolitan areas is limited. While no previous studies have reported on differences in cancer stage and treatment uptake by remoteness within the Indigenous population, the available evidence suggests Indigenous cancer patients are less likely to survive their cancer the further they live from urban centres. New analysis of QICS data indicates that Indigenous cancer patients in rural/remote Queensland were less likely to be diagnosed with localised disease and less likely to receive treatment for their cancer compared to their urban counterparts. Conclusion More research is needed to fully understand geographic differentials in cancer outcomes within the Indigenous population. Knowing how geographical location interacts with Indigenous status can help to identify ways of improving cancer outcomes for Indigenous Australians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]