Exploring equity in cancer treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation for culturally and linguistically diverse migrant populations living in Queensland, Australia: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: There is strong international evidence documenting inequities in cancer care for migrant populations. In Australia, there is limited information regarding cancer equity for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) migrant populations, defined in this study as migrants born in a country or region where English is not the primary language. This study sought to quantify and compare cancer treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation measures between CALD migrant and Australian born cancer populations. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted utilising electronic medical records at a major, tertiary hospital. Inpatient and outpatient encounters were assessed for all individuals diagnosed with a solid tumour malignancy in the year 2016 and followed for a total of five years. Individuals were screened for inclusion in the CALD migrant or Australian born cohort. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to compare treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation measures. Sociodemographic measures included age, sex, post code, employment, region of birth and marital status. Results: A total of 523 individuals were included, with 117 (22%) in the CALD migrant cohort and 406 (78%) in the Australian-born cohort. CALD migrants displayed a statistically significant difference in time from diagnosis to commencement of first treatment for radiation (P = 0.03) and surgery (P = 0.02) and had 16.6 times higher odds of declining recommended chemotherapy than those born in Australia (P = 0.00). Survivorship indicators favoured CALD migrants in mean time from diagnosis to death, however their odds of experiencing disease progression during the study period were 1.6 times higher than those born in Australia (P = 0.04). Service utilisation measures displayed that CALD migrants exhibited higher numbers of unplanned admissions (P = < 0.00), longer cumulative length of those admissions (P = < 0.00) and higher failure to attend scheduled appointments (P = < 0.00). Conclusion: This novel study has produced valuable findings in the areas of treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation for a neglected population in cancer research. The differences identified suggest potential issues of institutional inaccessibility. Future research is needed to examine the clinical impacts of these health differences in the field of cancer care, including the social and institutional determinants of influence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]