Search

Abstract Background Despite advances in cancer research and treatment, the burden of cancer is not evenly distributed. People experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage have higher rates of cancer, later stage at diagnoses, and are dying of cancers that are preventable and screen-detectable. However, less is known about barriers to accessing cancer treatment. Methods We conducted a scoping review of studies examining barriers to accessing cancer treatment for populations experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage in high-income countries, searched across four biomedical databases. Studies published in English between 2008 and 2021 in high-income countries, as defined by the World Bank, and reporting on barriers to cancer treatment were included. Results A total of 20 studies were identified. Most (n = 16) reported data from the United States, and the remaining included publications were from Canada (n = 1), Ireland (n = 1), United Kingdom (n = 1), and a scoping review (n = 1). The majority of studies (n = 9) focused on barriers to breast cancer treatment. The most common barriers included: inadequate insurance and financial constraints (n = 16); unstable housing (n = 5); geographical distribution of services and transportation challenges (n = 4); limited resources for social care needs (n = 7); communication challenges (n = 9); system disintegration (n = 5); implicit bias (n = 4); advanced diagnosis and comorbidities (n = 8); psychosocial dimensions and contexts (n = 6); and limited social support networks (n = 3). The compounding effect of multiple barriers exacerbated poor access to cancer treatment, with relevance across many social locations. Conclusion This review highlights barriers to cancer treatment across multiple levels, and underscores the importance of identifying patients at risk for socioeconomic disadvantage to improve access to treatment and cancer outcomes. Findings provide an understanding of barriers that can inform future, equity-oriented policy, practice, and service innovation.

Abstract Background A key pillar of Canada’s healthcare system is universal access, yet significant barriers to cancer services remain for people impacted by structural vulnerability (e.g., poverty, homelessness, racism). For this reason, cancer is diagnosed at a later stage, resulting in worse patient outcomes, a reduced quality of life, and at a higher cost to the healthcare system. Those who face significant barriers to access are under-represented in cancer control services Consequently, these inequities result in people dying from cancers that are highly treatable and preventable, however; little is known about their treatment and care course. The aim of this study was to explore barriers to accessing cancer treatment among people experiencing structural vulnerability within a Canadian context. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of ethnographic data informed by critical theoretical perspectives of equity and social justice. The original research draws from 30 months of repeated interviews (n = 147) and 300 h of observational fieldwork with people experiencing health and social inequities at the end-of-life, their support persons, and service providers. Results Our analysis identified four themes presenting as ‘modifiable’ barriers to inequitable access to cancer treatment: (1) housing as a key determinant for cancer treatment (2) impact of lower health literacy (3) addressing social care needs is a pre-requisite for treatment (4) intersecting and compounding barriers reinforce exclusion from cancer care. These inter-related themes point to how people impacted by health and social inequities are at times ‘dropped’ out of the cancer system and therefore unable to access cancer treatment. Conclusion Findings make visible the contextual and structural factors contributing to inequitable access to cancer treatment within a publically funded healthcare system. Identifying people who experience structural vulnerability, and approaches to delivering cancer services that are explicitly equity-oriented are urgently needed.

Abstract Background Despite a publicly-funded healthcare system, alarming cancer-related health and healthcare inequities persist in Canada. However, it remains unclear how equity is being understood and taken up within the Canadian cancer context. Our objective was to identify how health and healthcare equity are being discussed as goals or aims within the cancer care sector in Canada. Methods A rapid scoping review was conducted; five biomedical databases, 30 multidisciplinary websites, and Google were searched. We included English-language documents published between 2008 and 2021 that discussed health or healthcare equity in the Canadian cancer context. Results Of 3860 identified documents, 83 were included for full-text analysis. The prevalence of published and grey equity-oriented literature has increased over time (2008-2014 [n = 20]; 2015-2021 [n = 62]). Only 25% of documents (n = 21) included a definition of health equity. Concepts such as inequity, inequality and disparity were frequently used interchangeably, resulting in conceptual muddling. Only 43% of documents (n = 36) included an explicit health equity goal. Although a suite of actions were described across the cancer control continuum to address equity goals, most were framed as recommendations rather than direct interventions. Conclusion Health and healthcare equity is a growing priority in the cancer care sector; however, conceptual clarity is needed to guide the development of robust equity goals, and the development of sustainable, measurable actions that redress inequities across the cancer control continuum. If we are to advance health and healthcare equity in the cancer care sector, a coordinated and integrated approach will be required to enact transformative and meaningful change.

Abstract Aim To better understand how oncology nurses (a) navigate graduate studies; (b) perceive the impact of their academic work on their clinical practice, and vice versa; and (c) engage with clinical settings following graduate work. Design Interpretive descriptive cross‐sectional survey. Methods A qualitative exploratory web‐based survey exploring integration of graduate studies and clinical nursing practice. Results About 87 participants from seven countries responded. 71% were employed in clinical settings, 53% were enrolled in/graduated from Master's programs; 47% were enrolled in/graduated from doctoral programs. Participants had diverse motivations for pursuing graduate studies and improving clinical care. Participants reported graduate preparation increased their ability to provide quality care and conduct research. Lack of time and institutional structures were challenges to integrating clinical work and academic pursuits. Conclusions Given the many constraints and numerous benefits of nurses engaging in graduate work, structures and strategies to support hybrid roles should be explored.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) is a highly efficacious treatment that significantly reduces breast cancer recurrence and mortality for women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer. Yet, many women do not adhere to prescribed AET. The overarching aim of this research was to gain a better understanding of why a significant number of women diagnosed with breast cancer have suboptimal adherence to AET. A mixed-methods approach was used to explore the personal, social, and structural factors influencing breast cancer survivors’ AET adherence, including: (1) an integrative review of patient-reported factors associated with AET adherence; and (2) interviews with breast cancer survivors prescribed AET. In this paper, we summarize and discuss the key contributions of both phases of this research, implication for clinical practice, and how we might leverage the expertise of nurses in practicing to full scope to address the complex needs of breast cancer survivors prescribed AET.

Chez les femmes atteintes d’un cancer du sein à récepteurs hormonaux positifs, l’endocrinothérapie adjuvante est très efficace pour réduire le risque de récidive et de mortalité. Pourtant, ce ne sont pas toutes les femmes qui se conforment au traitement. L’objectif principal de cette recherche était de mieux comprendre pourquoi de nombreuses femmes ayant reçu un diagnostic de cancer du sein n’adhèrent pas au traitement adjuvant. Une approche méthodologique mixte a été utilisée afin d’explorer les facteurs personnels, sociaux et structurels qui influencent l’adhésion à l’endocrinothérapie adjuvante chez les survivantes du cancer du sein. L’approche comprend : 1) une revue intégrative des facteurs mentionnés par les patientes pour expliquer l’adhésion au traitement endocrinien; et 2) des entretiens avec des survivantes du cancer du sein à qui on a prescrit le traitement adjuvant. Le présent article résume et présente les principales contributions des deux phases de cette recherche, les implications pour la pratique clinique et la manière dont nous pourrons tirer parti de l’expertise des infirmières en les amenant à exercer pleinement leur pratique pour répondre aux besoins complexes des survivantes du cancer du sein à qui l’on prescrit l’endocrinothérapie adjuvante.

Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for breast cancer is suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to: (1) explore the experiences and perspectives of healthcare providers (HCPs) in providing care to breast cancer survivors prescribed AET, (2) identify how social and structural factors influence the provision of AET-related care, and (3) ascertain HCP recommendations for optimizing AET adherence and related care. Individual, in-depth interviews were conducted with 14 HCPs using an interpretive descriptive approach to inquiry and the theoretical lens of relational autonomy. Data was analyzed using thematic and constant comparative techniques. Healthcare providers focused on four main components of AET-related care: (1) the importance of having careful conversations about AET, (2) difficulties in navigating transitions in care, (3) symptom management as a big part of their role, and (4) dealing with AET discontinuation. Recommendations to improve AET adherence focused on developing sustainable and efficient models of delivering high-quality care to women on AET. Healthcare providers play a pivotal role educating women about AET and supporting their adherence to therapy. Sustainable healthcare system innovations and new models of care that address current system gaps are needed to enhance survivorship care, AET adherence, and ultimately, reduce cancer recurrence and mortality.

As more cancer patients survive into post-treatment, the challenge of managing their survivorship care is confronting health care systems globally. In striving to deliver high quality survivorship care, equity constitutes a particularly troublesome challenge. We analyzed accounts from both cancer survivors and stakeholders within care system management to uncover insights with respect to barriers to equitable cancer survivorship services. Beyond the social determinants of health that shape inequities across all of our systems, the cancer care system involves a pattern of prioritizing biomedicine, evidence-based options, and care standardization. We learned that these lead to system rigidities that not only compromise the individualization essential to person-centered care but also obscure the attention to group differences that becomes indispensable to responsiveness to inequities. On the basis of these insights, we reflect on what may be required to begin to redress the current and projected inequities with respect to access to appropriate cancer survivorship supports and services.

Le réseautage entre étudiants de cycle supérieur influence grandement leur parcours doctoral et postdoctoral. Le conseil d’administration de l’Association canadienne des infirmières en oncologie/Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology (ACIO/CANO) a donc incité les étudiants à mettre en place un Réseau des doctorants pour tisser des liens tout au long des études autour de l’intérêt commun pour l’oncologie et les soins connexes. Depuis sa création, ce réseau a su répondre avec dynamisme aux besoins évolutifs des membres et leur offrir des possibilités de perfectionnement professionnel. Pour découvrir et décrire les principaux aspects de l’évolution du Réseau, une analyse documentaire a été entreprise et a révélé deux thèmes : le développement des capacités et le dynamisme des leaders en tant que sources de rayonnement dans le milieu. Cette étude indique que partout au Canada, le Réseau des doctorants a été bénéfique pour les étudiants du cycle supérieur en soins infirmiers, car la création de liens entre pairs favorise leur participation à des activités éducatives, professionnelles et scientifiques. De plus, le Réseau inciterait la création par d’autres organisations professionnelles de réseaux de soutien à l’intention des étudiants au doctorat et postdoctorat.

Networking with individuals on a similar journey through graduate studies has been identified as an important influence in the experience of doctoral and postdoctoral students. Through the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology/Association canadienne des infirmières en oncologie (CANO/ACIO), student members were encouraged to establish a Doctoral Student Network (DSN) that would enable a connection through education and common interest in oncology and cancer care. Since its inception, the DSN has been dynamic in how it has addressed the evolving needs of members and in providing development opportunities to group members. To uncover and describe key aspects of its evolution, a document analysis was undertaken to reveal themes pertaining to capacity development and leadership voice as paths to leadership for DSN members. The results of this study suggest that the DSN provides a supportive environment for postgraduate nurses across Canada to connect with others in their peer group to foster engagement in educational, professional, and scholarly activities, as well as highlighting opportunities for other professional organizations interested in establishing a support network for graduate student members.

Abstract Background Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) significantly decreases the risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality. Notwithstanding the demonstrated efficacy of AET, 31–73% of breast cancer survivors do not persist with AET. The purpose of this study was to explore breast cancer survivors’ experiences and perspectives of persisting with AET and to identify the psychosocial and healthcare system factors that influence AET persistence. Methods Informed by interpretive descriptive methodology and relational autonomy theory, individual interviews were conducted with 22 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer who had been prescribed AET. These participants also completed a demographic form and a survey that assessed their perceived risk of recurrence. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic and constant comparative analysis to iteratively compare data and develop conceptualizations of the relationships among data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the quantitative data. Results The personal, social, and structural factors found to influence AET persistence included AET side effects, perception of breast cancer recurrence risk, medication and necessity beliefs, social support, the patient-provider relationship, and the continuity and frequency of follow-up care. For most women, over time, the decision-making process around AET persistence became a balancing act between quality of life and quantity of life. The interplay between the personal, social, and structural factors was complex and the weight women placed on some factors over others influenced their AET persistence or non-persistence. Conclusion Expanding our understanding of the factors affecting breast cancer survivors’ AET persistence from their perspective is the first step in developing efficacious, patient-centered interventions aimed at improving AET persistence. In order to improve AET persistence, enhanced symptom management is required, as well as the development of supportive care strategies that acknowledge the values and beliefs held by breast cancer survivors while reinforcing the benefits of AET, and addressing women’s reasons for non-persistence. Improved continuity of health care and patient-healthcare provider communication across oncology and primary care settings is also required. The development and evaluation of supportive care strategies that address the challenges associated with AET experienced by breast cancer survivors hold the potential to increase both women’s quality and quantity of life.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) are recognized as having distinct knowledge and skills including their role in NP-led and NP-involved research. Nurse practitioners are registered nurses who have completed additional education, often at the Master’s level, and are able to work in an expanded scope of practice (Donald et al., 2010; Kaasalainen et al., 2010). This includes the ability to diagnose, write prescriptions, order laboratory tests, and refer patients to specialists (Sangster-Gormley, 2016). Over the past 40 years, research has demonstrated that NPs provide safe and effective care (Horrocks, Anderson, & Salisbury, 2002; Mundinger, Kane, Lenz, & Trial, 2009; Sackett et al., 1974; Sangster-Gormley, Frisch, & Schreiber, 2013).

Il est reconnu que les infirmières praticiennes (IP) possèdent des connaissances et des compétences propres et qu’elles jouent un rôle dans la recherche en dirigeant ou en collaborant à des projets. Les infirmières praticiennes sont des infirmières autorisées qui ont suivi une formation supplémentaire, souvent une maîtrise, et qui sont en mesure d’exercer dans un champ de pratique plus large (Donald et al., 2010; Kaasalainen et al., 2010). Elles ont notamment la capacité d’établir des diagnostics, d’écrire des ordonnances, de commander des analyses en laboratoire et d’adresser les patients à un spécialiste (Sangster-Gormley, 2016). La recherche prouve depuis 40 ans que les IP prodiguent des soins sûrs et efficaces (Horrocks, Anderson et Salisbury, 2002; Mundinger, Kane, Lenz et Trial, 2009; Sackett et al., 1974; Sangster-Gormley, Frisch et Schreiber, 2013).