Search

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an essential part of health research. There is a need for genuine involvement in order to ensure that research is relevant to patients. This can then improve the quality, relevance, and impact of health research, while at the same time reducing wasted research and in doing so bringing science and society closer together. Despite the increasing attention for this involvement, it is not yet common practice to report on proposed activities. An article reporting planned PPI could provide guidance and inspiration for the wider academic community in future activities. Therefore, this current article aims to describe the way in which PPI principles are incorporated in the research project called "Quality of Life in Oncology: measuring what matters for cancer patients and survivors in Europe (EUonQoL)." This project aims to develop a new set of questionnaires to enable cancer patients to assess their quality of life, entitled the EUonQoL-Kit. Methods: The first step is to recruit cancer patients and their informal caregivers as co-researchers in order to train them to collaborate with the researchers. Based on their skills and preferences, they are then assigned to several of the project's work packages. Their individual roles, tasks, and responsibilities regarding the work packages, to which they have been assigned, are evaluated and adapted when necessary. The impact of their involvement is evaluated by both the researchers and co-researchers. Discussion: PPI is a complex and dynamic process. As such, the overall structure of the research may be defined while at the same time leaving room for certain aspects to be filled in later. Our research is, we believe, relevant as co-researcher involvement in such a large European project as EUonQoL is a new development. Plain English summary: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is important in health research. This increases the relevance, quality, and impact of research, reduces wasted research, and promotes collaboration between science and society. There is growing attention for this involvement, but it is not yet common practice to report on planned PPI activities. This article addresses this gap by describing how its principles are integrated into the project called "Quality of Life in Oncology: measuring what matters for cancer patients and survivors in Europe (EUonQoL)", a study that aims to develop a new set of quality of life questionnaires for cancer patients. The methods involve recruiting and training co-researchers who collaborate with the researchers. Co-researchers perform tasks based on their skills and preferences. Their involvement is constantly evaluated with both researchers and co-researchers and adjusted if necessary. Continuous support is provided, and evaluations are conducted to assess the process and impact of co-researcher involvement. PPI is a complex and dynamic process. Therefore, this article outlines the overall research structure while leaving room for later adjustments. The intention of publishing the proposed activities is to contribute insights into the research field and inform future delivery of PPI. Our PPI activities should provide a meaningful contribution to the research field as co-researcher involvement in such a large European project is new. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accounting for patients' perspective has become increasingly important. Based on the Consumer Quality Index method (founded on Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) a questionnaire was recently developed for Dutch cancer patients. As a next step, this study aimed to adapt and pilot this questionnaire for international comparison of cancer patients experience and satisfaction with care in six European countries.Method: The Consumer Quality Index was translated into the local language at the participating pilot sites using cross-translation. A minimum of 100 patients per site were surveyed through convenience sampling. Data from seven pilot sites in six countries was collected through an online and paper-based survey. Internal consistency was tested by calculating Cronbach's alpha and validity by means of cognitive interviews. Demographic factors were compared as possible influencing factors.Results: A total of 698 patients from six European countries filled the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha was good or satisfactory in 8 out of 10 categories. Patient satisfaction significantly differed between the countries. We observed no difference in patient satisfaction for age, gender, education, and tumor type, but satisfaction was significantly higher in patients with a higher level of activation.Conclusion: This European Cancer Consumer Quality Index(ECCQI) showed promising scores on internal consistency (reliability) and a good internal validity. The ECCQI is to our knowledge the first to measure and compare experiences and satisfaction of cancer patients on an international level, it may enable healthcare providers to improve the quality of cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. Methods: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. Results: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. Conclusion: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals., (© 2021 The Authors. Molecular Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched a program for accreditation and designation (A&D) of cancer centers in Europe based on voluntary participation in 2008. In 2012, the Italian Ministry of Health decided to fund cancer centers in Italy, members of the Alleanza Contro il Cancro (ACC), to go through the OECI accreditation program. Ten centers participated in the program and 10 completed the full cycle of the OECI A&D process in consecutive series over a 2-year period. The process was successfully completed within the planned timeline and the overall findings were presented to the Italian Ministry of Health and representatives of all the participating centers in November 2015. The program had a considerable team-building effect, which will likely continue as the improvement plans are implemented. Centers fed back to OECI that the A&D program had led to better formal organization of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and cancer care pathways, and had helped them to harmonize the integration of research into clinical practice. Centers also concluded that they benefited from recognition through an international accreditation system, and that it had led to them developing better patient information and involvement. The importance of the improvement plans that each center had to produce following the audit reviews cannot be underestimated. The OECI concludes that implementation of the A&D program at the national level is feasible despite national peculiarities related to health planning and organization in each member state. This is a good example of an EU project working well, with member states helping each other and learning from best practice, to improve the overall quality of cancer care and research and to establish consistency. The initial accreditation is the first part of an ongoing process of improving comprehensive cancer care, integrating bench to bedside.

Background: Cancer care is undergoing an important paradigm shift from a disease-focused management to a patient-centred approach, in which increasingly more attention is paid to psychosocial aspects, quality of life, patients' rights and empowerment and survivorship. In this context, multidisciplinary teams emerge as a practical necessity for optimal coordination among health professionals and clear communication with patients. The European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), an initiative launched by the European Commission in 2009, addressed the multidisciplinary care from a policy perspective in order to define the core elements that all tumour-based multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should include. To that effect, a working group conference was held in January 2013 within the EPAAC Work Package 7 (on Healthcare) framework., Methods: The consensus group consisted of high-level representatives from the following European scientific societies, patient associations and stakeholders: European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European SocieTy for Radiology & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG), European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS), International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS),European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), EuropaColon, Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Association of European Cancer Leagues (ECL), Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), EUSOMA - European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists, European Hospital and Healthcare Federation (HOPE) and EPAAC Work Packages 5 (Health promotion and prevention), 7, 8 (Research), 9 (Information systems) and 10 (Cancer plans). A background document with a list of 26 core issues drawn from a systematic review of the literature was used to guide the discussion. Five areas related to MDTs were covered: care objectives, organisation, clinical assessment, patients' rights and empowerment and policy support. Preliminary drafts of the document were widely circulated for consultation and amendments by the working group before final approval., Results: The working group unanimously formulated a Policy Statement on Multidisciplinary Cancer Care to define the core elements that should be implemented by all tumour-based MDTs. This document identifies MDTs as the core component in cancer care organisation and sets down the key elements to guide changes across all European health systems., Conclusion: MDTs are an essential instrument of effective cancer care policy, and their continued development crucial to providing patients the care they need and deserve. While implementation must remain in local hands, European health systems can still benefit from having a basis for an effective multidisciplinary model of cooperation. This policy statement is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers and healthcare providers who wish to improve the services currently provided to the cancer patients whose lives and well-being depend on their action., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Biotherapy of cancer holds great promise for its potential to lead to the identification of novel, selective, and effective treatments against cancer. However, the clinical development of biopharmaceuticals and biotherapy products is hampered by several and diverse barriers. Herein, we will address some of the critical issues identified both at the national and European level as the major obstacles for the translation of knowledge into clinical applications in the field of biotherapy and immunotherapy of cancer. We will also illustrate specific initiatives undertaken both in Europe and in Italy in order to support the translational and clinical research and that are expected to have a favorable impact on the process of clinical development of novel and more effective therapeutic interventions against cancer. The contents of this article are directly referred to the event "International Clinical Trials' Day on Biotherapy of Cancer" organized in the context of the OECI Genoa 2008, with the sponsorship of Alliance Against Cancer (ACC) and the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS, the Italian National Institute of Health), and under the auspices of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN). This event sees the active participation of representatives of the ISS and of the Italian Network for Tumor Biotherapy, both involved in a project recently funded by ACC and aimed at the promotion of clinical research in the field of cancer biotherapy and immunotherapy, through the creation of a national network of clinical cancer research centers and GMP facilities dedicated to the production of biological drugs and advanced medicinal products.