Search

: Objective: Rural cancer caregivers report poor wellbeing and high unmet needs for support. This study investigates sources of support sought by cancer caregivers living in rural Australia, and factors associated with support‐seeking. Methods: Informal caregivers of people with cancer completed a questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics, caregiver factors and support‐seeking. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and logistic regression were used to identify common sources of support and factors associated with support‐seeking. Alluvial and radar plots were used to identify and describe support‐seeking profiles. Findings: Of 244 rural caregivers, 64% reported seeking support for themselves, 72% for the cancer patient, and 22% did not seek any support. The most common sources of support were general practitioners and online. Higher caregiver burden, higher income, caring for someone with anxiety/depression or caring for someone who has difficulty completing their usual activities were associated with seeking support from a greater number of sources. The ‘No support‐seekers’ profile had the highest proportions of caregivers who were male, caring for someone Conclusions: Many rural caregivers seek support for themselves and the cancer patient, commonly from medical and online sources. Implications for public health: Further work may be needed to reduce caregiver burden and support caregivers who are male, caring for someone recently diagnosed, and those with lower incomes., Following a cancer diagnosis, family members and friends often become informal caregivers, helping with activities of daily living, medical care and follow‐up, and providing emotional and social support.[sup.1,2] While some [...]

Background: The global economic cost of cancer and the costs of ongoing care for survivors are increasing. Little is known about factors affecting hospitalisations and related costs for the growing number of cancer survivors. Our aim was to identify associated factors of cancer survivors admitted to hospital in the public system and their costs from a health services perspective. Methods: A population‐based, retrospective, data linkage study was conducted in Queensland (COS‐Q), Australia, including individuals diagnosed with a first primary cancer who incurred healthcare costs between 2013 and 2016. Generalised linear models were fitted to explore associations between socio‐demographic (age, sex, country of birth, marital status, occupation, geographic remoteness category and socio‐economic index) and clinical (cancer type, year of/time since diagnosis, vital status and care type) factors with mean annual hospital costs and mean episode costs. Results: Of the cohort (N = 230,380) 48.5% (n = 111,820) incurred hospitalisations in the public system (n = 682,483 admissions). Hospital costs were highest for individuals who died during the costing period (cost ratio 'CR': 1.79, p < 0.001) or living in very remote or remote location (CR: 1.71 and CR: 1.36, p < 0.001) or aged 0–24 years (CR: 1.63, p < 0.001). Episode costs were highest for individuals in rehabilitation or palliative care (CR: 2.94 and CR: 2.34, p < 0.001), or very remote location (CR: 2.10, p < 0.001). Higher contributors to overall hospital costs were 'diseases and disorders of the digestive system' (AU$661 m, 21% of admissions) and 'neoplastic disorders' (AU$554 m, 20% of admissions). Conclusions: We identified a range of factors associated with hospitalisation and higher hospital costs for cancer survivors, and our results clearly demonstrate very high public health costs of hospitalisation. There is a lack of obvious means to reduce these costs in the short or medium term which emphasises an increasing economic imperative to improving cancer prevention and investments in home‐ or community‐based patient support services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Objective: This study aimed to understand how cancer survivors in rural Queensland seek and receive information, as well as their preferences regarding the content and delivery of health?related information. Methods: This study explored cancer survivors? experiences in seeking and comprehending health information using a qualitative descriptive approach. Semi?structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Two major themes and six sub?themes were identified including 1) information content and gaps ? a) information about diagnosis and treatment, b) survivorship information gaps and c) practical support needs and 2) delivery and acceptance of information ? a) sources of information, b) personalised information needs and c) information seeking or avoidance. Findings suggested that health information provision was inconsistent; survivors? attitudes towards seeking information varied greatly; and survivors? had difficulty processing information due to emotional distress. Conclusion: The role of the health professional is critical in providing information and support to rural cancer survivors. Information provided should be tailored to meet the needs and preferences of individuals taking into consideration demographic factors and attitudes. Implications for public health: The current findings imply that quality information provision after cancer treatment would facilitate improvements in satisfaction among rural cancer survivors., Cancer is a significant public health issue in Australia, as it is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity.[sup.1] The provision of health information and the degree to which individuals [...]

Objective: To undertake an economic evaluation of a telehealth psychological support intervention for patients with primary brain tumor (PBT). Methods: A within‐trial cost‐utility analysis over 6 months was performed comparing a tailored telehealth‐psychological support intervention with standard care (SC) in a randomized control trial. Data were sourced from the Telehealth Making Sense of Brain Tumor (Tele‐MAST) trial survey data, project records, and administrative healthcare claims. Quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on the EuroQol‐5D‐5L. Non‐parametric bootstrapping with 2000 iterations was used to determine sampling uncertainty. Multiple imputation was used for handling missing data. Results: The Tele‐MAST trial included 82 participants and was conducted in Queensland, Australia during 2018–2021. When all healthcare claims were included, the incremental cost savings from Tele‐MAST were ‐AU$4,327 (95% CI: −$8637, −$18) while incremental QALY gains were small at 0.03 (95% CI: −0.02, 0.08). The likelihood of Tele‐MAST being cost‐effective versus SC was 87% at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of AU$50,000 per QALY gain. When psychological‐related healthcare costs were included only, the incremental cost per QALY gain was AU$10,685 (95% CI: dominant, $24,566) and net monetary benefits were AU$534 (95% CI: $466, $602) with a 65% likelihood of the intervention being cost‐effective. Conclusions: Based on this small randomized controlled trial, the Tele‐MAST intervention is a cost‐effective intervention for improving the quality of life of people with PBT in Australia. Patients receiving the intervention incurred significantly lower overall healthcare costs than patients in SC. There was no significant difference in costs incurred for psychological health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]