Governance in/of Cancer Care and Stewardship in Cancer Control: Creation of Definitions

In the literature in the field of cancer care, especially in the literature concerning national cancer control programmes, the terms governance and stewardship in/of cancer care are used, but usually not explained or defined. Therefore, we planned a systematic literature review in order to find the definitions of the terms governance and stewardship in/of cancer care. It was planned to create new definitions of the mentioned terms in case of unsuccessful finds. A literature review using PubMed, Google and MeSH as well as an opportunistic search for extra articles and chapters from books and grey literature was performed. Most of the found and analysed articles did not give exact explanation of the terms governance/stewardship in/of cancer care or they cited older articles (published before the year 2000) where the terms are used mostly in the field of clinical governance or in the completely other fileds, mostly banking, economy, religion or spirituality. Therefore, it was decided in the working group of experts from different European countries collaborating within in the work package Governance of integrated and comprehensive cancer care in the frame of the Innovative Partnership for the Action Against Cancer Joint Action project on cancer to create new definitions which we are presenting for the first time. The new definitions will facilitate the understanding of the leadership tasks in the area of cancer care and cancer control and will be particularly useful in the field of cancer programmes

Engaging European society at the forefront of cancer research and care

Cancer prevention; Cancer research; PolicyPrevenció del càncer; Recerca del càncer; PolíticaPrevención del cáncer; Investigación del cáncer; PolíticaEuropean cancer research stakeholders met in October 2022 in Heidelberg, Germany, at the 5th Gago conference on European Cancer Policy, to discuss the current cancer research and cancer care policy landscape in Europe. Meeting participants highlighted gaps in the existing European programmes focusing on cancer research, including Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP), the Mission on Cancer (MoC), Understanding Cancer (UNCAN.eu), and the joint action CRANE, and put forward the next priorities, in the form of the Heidelberg Manifesto for cancer research. This meeting report presents all discussions that shed light on how infrastructures can be effectively shaped for translational, prevention, clinical and outcomes cancer research, with a focus on implementation and sustainability and while engaging patients and the public. In addition, we summarize recommendations on how to introduce frameworks for the digitalization of European cancer research. Finally, we discuss what structures, commitment, and resources are needed to establish a collaborative cancer research environment in Europe to achieve the scale required for innovation.Research discussed by Elena Garralda has been funded by CaixaResearch Advanced Oncology Research Program supported by Fundació La Caixa (LCF/PR/CE07/50610001) and by the European Union under grant agreements no. 965397 (CC-DART) and 101079984 (PCM4EU)

How to improve efficiency in cancer care: dimensions, methods, and areas of evaluation

Efficiency in healthcare is crucial since available resources are scarce, and the cost of inefficient allocation is measured in prior outcomes. This is particularly relevant for cancer. The aim of this paper is to gain a comprehensive overview of the areas and dimensions to improve efficiency, and establish the indicators, different methods, perspectives, and areas of evaluation, to provide recommendations for how to improve efficiency and measure gains in cancer care.Methods: We conducted a two-phase design. First, a comprehensive scoping literature review was conducted, searching four databases. Studies published between 2000 and 2021 were included if they described experiences and cases of efficiency in cancer care or methods to evaluate efficiency. The results of the literature review were then discussed during two rounds of online consultation with a panel of 15 external experts invited to provide insight and comments to deliberate policy recommendations.Results: 46 papers met the inclusion criteria. Based on the papers retrieved we identified six areas for achieving efficiency gains throughout the entire care pathway and, for each area of efficiency, we categorized the methods and outcomes used to measure efficiency gain.Conclusion: This is the first attempt to systemize a scattered body of literature on how to improve efficiency in cancer care and identify key areas of improvement. Policy summary: There are many opportunities to improve efficiency in cancer care. We defined seven policy recommendations on how to improve efficiency in cancer care throughout the care pathway and how to improve the measurement of efficiency gains

National plans and awareness campaigns as priorities for achieving global brain health

Neurological conditions are the leading cause of death and disability combined. This public health crisis has become a global priority with the introduction of WHO's Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders 2022–2031 (IGAP). 18 months after this plan was adopted, global neurology stakeholders, including representatives of the OneNeurology Partnership (a consortium uniting global neurology organisations), take stock and advocate for urgent acceleration of IGAP implementation. Drawing on lessons from relevant global health contexts, this Health Policy identifies two priority IGAP targets to expedite national delivery of the entire 10-year plan: namely, to update national policies and plans, and to create awareness campaigns and advocacy programmes for neurological conditions and brain health. To ensure rapid attainment of the identified priority targets, six strategic drivers are proposed: universal community awareness, integrated neurology approaches, intersectoral governance, regionally coordinated IGAP domestication, lived experience-informed policy making, and neurological mainstreaming (advocating to embed brain health into broader policy agendas). Contextualised with globally emerging IGAP-directed efforts and key considerations for intersectoral policy design, this novel framework provides actionable recommendations for policy makers and IGAP implementation partners. Timely, synergistic pursuit of the six drivers might aid WHO member states in cultivating public awareness and policy structures required for successful intersectoral roll-out of IGAP by 2031, paving the way towards brain health for all.</p

The European Code of Cancer Practice

There are considerable disparities between the quality of cancer care and clinical outcomes for cancer patients in different European countries, regions, hospitals and communities. These have persisted despite the introduction of many European and National Cancer Plans, an extensive portfolio of clinical guidelines and the existence of evidence based guidelines for the good practice in planning cancer healthcare systems. We describe the European Code of Cancer Practice which is a citizen and patient-centred accessible widely disseminated statement of the core requirements for good clinical cancer practice. The Code sets out 10 key overarching Rights of what a patient should expect from their healthcare system each supported by a plain language explanation. The Rights highlight the importance of equal access to affordable and optimal cancer care, good quality information about an individual patient’s disease and treatment and about the quality and outcomes of the cancer service they will use. Specialised multidisciplinary cancer care teams, shared decision-making, research and innovation, a focus on quality of life, the integration of supportive and palliative care within oncology are all emphasised. There is a need for a systematic approach to supporting cancer survivors with a survivorship care plan including their rehabilitation, reintegration into society and return to work where appropriate without discrimination. The Code has been co-produced by a team of cancer patients, patient advocates and cancer professionals to bridge the gap between clinical guidelines, healthcare policies and patients’ everyday experience. It is robustly evidence-based and supported by a comprehensive review of the medical literature and evidence for good clinical practice. The Code is strongly endorsed by Europe’s professional and patient cancer organisations and the European Commission

Integration of oncology and palliative care : a Lancet Oncology Commission

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care

Challenges to Global Health Emerging from the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic deepened challenges and opened new fronts where old and unresolved problems met with new problems triggered by the pandemic itself. There are several issues, problems, and challenges related to the post-COVID world we are in. This paper discusses some of them from different perspectives and elaborates on the future challenges and their solutions, which need to be tackled. Apart from the pre-existing problems, we are now also facing new military conflicts, interrupted supply chains, even in medicines supplies, as well as the worsening of climate change, further complicated by the military conflicts and a potential new global economic crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic left the world with many uncertainties about the future as there seem to be few answers ready to tackle the combination of the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with the pre-existing problems and challenges. Inequalities in terms of socio-economic differences and inequalities in health are driving disease burden, which will again be marked by the population aging and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Global collaboration and the joint search for solutions to global challenges have become inevitable. Research into behavioral determinants of health and health promotion are essential in understanding the sources of controversy regarding and resistance to proven public health interventions

Monitoring of quality in health care using indicators

A number of stakeholders identified the need to revise the national set of quality indicators. The objectives of monitoring quality indicators that were determined in 2010 for the most part were not accomplished. Key reasons include: insufficient communication between stakeholders after the indicator set was introduced, insufficient definition of human and financial resources necessary for indicators\u27 monitoring, lack of a thorough ICT structure that could support indicators\u27 monitoring and weak leadership for these activities. A new performance indicators\u27 set requires a clear identification of the objectives to be pursued and consequently of the theoretical framework for the indicators. Mostly it is necessary in addition to the identification of the challenges so far, to also recognize what are the possibilities to strengthen this area in the future

Health manpower planning in Slovenia: A policy analysis of the changes in roles of stakeholders and methodologies

A heightened awareness about medical manpower issues can be observed in countries that are in a state of political, economic, and social transition. Slovenia entered the transition process in 1989 and became an independent country in 1991. Transition and independence influenced its health care in several ways. It changed the health care system and its financing (by introducing a Bismarckian style of social insurance). It then redistributed power from the Ministry of Health to several stakeholders. A major change occurred in the labor market in health care when the flow of health professionals from the newly independent countries greatly decreased. The decrease was partly due to the consequences of the war in the Balkans and partly due to independent labor legislation in Slovenia. Transitional changes brought new stakeholders to the scene, with a resulting redistribution of responsibilities for health manpower policies and the use of various methodologies. This policy analysis offers a detailed description of the contextual framework, quantitative data on medical manpower development, and, most important, interviews with representatives of the key stakeholders and study of relevant policy documents. We conclude that all stakeholders underpin the need for a structured approach toward health manpower planning in the form of a more coherent system of planning, decision making, and control. A compromise on mutual responsibilities between the less dominant Ministry of Health and the two new powerful stakeholders, the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia and the Medical Chamber of Slovenia, seems necessar