Search

BACKGROUND: Supportive care to ensure optimal quality of life is an essential component of cancer care and symptom control across the lifespan. Ongoing advances in cancer treatment, increasing toxicity from many novel treatment regimes, and variations in access to care and cancer outcomes across the globe and resource settings present significant challenges for supportive care delivery. To date, no overarching framework has been developed to guide supportive care development worldwide. As an initial step of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Supportive Care 2030 Movement, we developed a targeted, unifying set of ambition statements to envision the future of supportive cancer care. METHODS: From September 2022 until June 2023, we used a modified Delphi methodology to develop and attain consensus about ambition statements related to supportive cancer care. Leaders of MASCC Study Groups were invited to participate in an Expert Panel for the first two Delphi rounds (and a preliminary round to suggest potential ambition statements). Patient Advocates then examined and provided input regarding the ambition statements. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven Expert Panelists and 11 Patient Advocates participated. Consensus was attained on 13 ambition statements, with two sub-statements. The ambition statements addressed global standards for guideline development and implementation, coordinated and individualized care, dedicated supportive oncology services, self-management, needs for screening and actions, patient education, behavioral support, financial impact minimization, comprehensive survivorship care, and timely palliative care, reflecting collaboration, coordination and team-based approach across all levels. INTERPRETATION: This study is the first to develop shared ambitions for the future of supportive cancer care on a global level. These ambition statements can facilitate a coordinated, resource-stratified, and person-centered approach and inform research, education, clinical services, and policy efforts. FUNDING: This project received funding support from Prof Raymond Chans NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1194051).

Government responses to COVID-19 have dramatically altered the social quality of daily circumstances. Consequently, theoretical questions about social cohesion require recalibration as we explore new models of social quality. Central to this article is trust, one of the fundamental tenets of social cohesion. We present data from interviews with 40 women in midlife (45-64 years) regarding their everyday experiences of 'life in lockdown' during the pandemic. Key themes focus on women's (dis)trust in individuals (e.g., politicians, public health experts, family, themselves) and systems (e.g., politics, medicine, the media). This study provides insights into the differential impact of the pandemic in shaping public trust and hence social cohesion-in authority, institutions, and 'each other'-with important lessons for how future efforts can rebuild trust in post-pandemic times. Keywords: Australia, COVID-19, midlife women, pandemic, social quality, social cohesion, trust, The purpose of this article is to explore how COVID-19 countermeasures and associated restrictions on 'social life' have altered the nature of trust-in governments, the media, 'experts,' and the wider [...]

The proliferation of assisted dying legislative reforms globally is a significant change in the social and medico‐legal landscape of end‐of‐life care. Understanding the impacts of these legislative reforms on family members who care for a dying person is vital, yet under‐theorised in research. In this article, drawing on semi‐structured interviews with 42 carers for a person who has sought assisted dying in Australia, and extending ideas of ontological choreography we explore the new and complex choreographies enacted by carers in their endeavour to arrange a 'good death' for the dying person. We find that desires to fulfil the dying person's wishes are often accompanied by normative pressures, affective tensions and complexities in bereavement. Enacting assisted dying requires carers to perform a repertoire of highly‐staged practices. Yet, institutional obstacles and normative cultural scripts of dying can constrain carer assisted dying practices. Understanding the nuances of carers' experiences and how they navigate this new end‐of‐life landscape, we argue, provides critical insights about how assisted dying legislation is producing new cultural touchpoints for caring at the end of life. Moreover, we show how emerging cultural scripts of assisted dying are impacting in the lives of these carers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Oncology care provision by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is widely acknowledged as best practice. Formal team meetings, led by chairpersons, coordinate decisions on diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, and review. This study addresses a gap in meeting Chairs' perspectives on factors affecting functionality across the meeting cycle, from pre‐meeting patient list triage to post‐meeting dissemination of recommendations. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted in person with Chairs within two urban geographical regions in New South Wales, Australia as part of a larger project. Though the population of oncology MDT Chairs in Australia is small, the richness and depth of data from nine Chairs were considered to be valuable knowledge in support of extant literature on meeting functionality. An integrated deductive‐inductive approach was applied to data analysis. Results: Perceived facilitators, barriers, and ideals relating to pre‐meeting, in‐meeting, and post‐meeting functionality were identified across five pre‐determined analytic categories: the team; meeting infrastructure; meeting organization and logistics; patient‐centered clinical decision‐making, and; team governance. Key barriers included inadequate information technology, limited support staff, and lack of dedicated time for Chair duties. Corresponding facilitators included robust Information Technology infrastructure and support, provision of clinically knowledgeable MDT meeting coordinators, and formal employment recognition of Chairs' responsibilities and skill sets. Conclusion: Chairs across various tumor streams develop workarounds to overcome barriers and ensure quality meeting outcomes. With more robust support they could enhance value by sharing evidence, conducting audits, and engaging in research. The findings highlight the need for healthcare systems to support tumor stream clinical networks by allocating greater resources to prioritize multidisciplinary meetings and cancer care decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]