Working at the interface in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health: focussing on the individual health professional and their organisation as a means to address health equity

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience inequity in health outcomes in Australia. Health care interactions are an important starting place to seek to address this inequity. The majority of health professionals in Australia do not identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people and the health care interaction therefore becomes an example of working in an intercultural space (or interface). It is therefore critical to consider how health professionals may maximise the positive impact within the health care interaction by skilfully working at the interface. Methods: Thirty-five health professionals working in South Australia were interviewed about their experiences working with Aboriginal people. Recruitment was through purposive sampling. The research was guided by the National Health and Medical Research Council Values and Ethics for undertaking research with Aboriginal communities. Critical social research was used to analyse data. Results: Interviews revealed two main types of factors influencing the experience of non-Aboriginal health professionals working with Aboriginal people at the interface: the organisation and the individual. Within these two factors, a number of sub-factors were found to be important including organisational culture, organisational support, accessibility of health services and responding to expectations of the wider health system (organisation) and personal ideology and awareness of colonisation (individual). Conclusions: A health professional’s practice at the interface cannot be considered in isolation from individual and organisational contexts. It is critical to consider how the organisational and individual factors identified in this research will be addressed in health professional training and practice, in order to maximise the ability of health professionals to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and therefore contribute to addressing health equity.Annabelle M. Wilson, Janet Kelly, Anthea Magarey, Michelle Jones and Tamara Mackea

Universal Health Coverage for Health Equity: From Principle to Practice; A Response to the Recent Commentaries

CorrespondenceAbstract unavailableMatthew Fisher, Toby Freeman, Tamara Mackean, Sharon Friel, Fran Bau

Coproducing Aboriginal patient journey mapping tools for improved quality and coordination of care

This paper describes the rationale and process for developing a set of Aboriginal patient journey mapping tools with Aboriginal patients, health professionals, support workers, educators and researchers in the Managing Two Worlds Together project between 2008 and 2015. Aboriginal patients and their families from rural and remote areas, and healthcare providers in urban, rural and remote settings, shared their perceptions of the barriers and enablers to quality care in interviews and focus groups, and individual patient journey case studies were documented. Data were thematically analysed. In the absence of suitable existing tools, a new analytical framework and mapping approach was developed. The utility of the tools in other settings was then tested with health professionals, and the tools were further modified for use in quality improvement in health and education settings in South Australia and the Northern Territory.A central set of patient journey mapping tools with flexible adaptations, a workbook, and five sets of case studies describing how staff adapted and used the tools at different sites are available for wider use.Janet Kelly, Judith Dwyer, Tamara Mackean, Kim O’Donnell and Eileen Willi

Implementing universal and targeted policies for health equity: lessons from Australia

ePublished: 9 November 2021Background: Debate continues in public health on the roles of universal or targeted policies in providing equity of access to health- related goods or services, and thereby contributing to health equity. Research examining policy implementation can provide fresh insights on these issues. Methods: We synthesised findings across case studies of policy implementation in four policy areas of primary healthcare (PHC), telecommunications, Indigenous health and land use policy, which incorporated a variety of universal and targeted policy structures. We analysed findings according to three criteria of equity in access – availability, affordability and acceptability – and definitions of universal, proportionate-universal, targeted and residual policies, and devolved governance structures. Results: Our analysis showed that existing universal, proportionate-universal and targeted policies in an Australian context displayed strengths and weaknesses in addressing availability, affordability and acceptability dimensions of equity in access. Conclusion: While residualist policies are unfavourable to equity of access, other forms of targeting as well as universal and proportionate-universal structure have the potential to be combined in context-specific ways favourable to equity of access to health-related goods and services. To optimise benefits, policies should address equity of access in the three dimensions of availability, affordability and acceptability. Devolved governance structures have the potential to augment equity benefits of either universal or targeted policies.Matthew Fisher, Patrick Harris, Toby Freeman, Tamara Mackean, Emma George, Sharon Friel, Fran Bau

Health technology reassessment: the art of the possible

BACKGROUND: Health technology reassessment (HTR) is "a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, social, ethical, and economic effects of a technology currently used in the healthcare system, to inform optimal use of that technology in comparison to its alternatives." The purpose of this study is to describe the key themes in the context of current HTR activities and propose a way forward for this newly emerging field. METHODS: Data were gathered from a workshop held as part of the 2012 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) symposium. The workshop consisted of two panel presentations followed by discussion; data gathered, including presentations and rich audience discussion transcripts, were analyzed for key themes emerging in the field of HTR using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: The language chosen to describe HTR will set the tone for engagement. The identification of champions at multiple levels and political will are essential. Key lessons from international experience are: disinvestment is difficult, focus on clinical areas not specific technologies, identify clear goals of the HTR agenda. Six key themes were identified to move the HTR agenda forward: emphasize integration over segregation, focus on development of HTR methods and processes, processes are context-specific but lessons must be shared, build capacity in synergistic interdisciplinary fields, develop meaningful stakeholder engagement, strengthen postimplementation monitoring and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: To move this field forward, we must continue to build on international experiences with a focus on developing novel methodological approaches to generating, incorporating, and implementing evidence into policy and practice.Gail MacKean, Tom Noseworthy, Adam G. Elshaug, Laura Leggett, Peter Littlejohns, Joan Berezanski and Fiona Clemen

Biomarkers of systemic inflammation predict survival with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab is an established first-line option for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) expressing programmed death-ligand 1 ≥50%. Durable responses are seen in a subset of patients; however, many derive little clinical benefit. Biomarkers of the systemic inflammatory response predict survival in NSCLC. We evaluated their prognostic significance in patients receiving first-line pembrolizumab for advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab for advanced NSCLC with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50% at two regional Scottish cancer centres were identified. Pretreatment inflammatory biomarkers (white cell count, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, albumin, prognostic nutritional index) were recorded. The relationship between these and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined. RESULTS: Data were available for 219 patients. On multivariate analysis, albumin and neutrophil count were independently associated with PFS (P 7.5 × 10(9)/l to give a three-tier categorical score. SIPS predicted PFS [hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68-2.52 (P < 0.001)] and OS [hazard ratio 2.33, 95% CI 1.86-2.92 (P < 0.001)]. It stratified PFS from 2.5 (SIPS2), to 8.7 (SIPS1) to 17.9 months (SIPS0) (P < 0.001) and OS from 5.1 (SIPS2), to 12.4 (SIPS1) to 28.7 months (SIPS0) (P < 0.001). The relative risk of death before 6 months was 2.96 (95% CI 1.98-4.42) in patients with SIPS2 compared with those with SIPS0-1 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SIPS, a simple score combining albumin and neutrophil count, predicts survival in patients with NSCLC receiving first-line pembrolizumab. Unlike many proposed prognostic scores, SIPS uses only routinely collected pretreatment test results and provides a categorical score. It stratifies survival across clinically meaningful time periods that may assist clinicians and patients with treatment decisions. We advocate validation of the prognostic utility of SIPS in this and other immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment settings

Early prehabilitation reduces admissions and time in hospital in patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer

Objectives Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the UK. Prehabilitation aims to maximise patient fitness and minimise the negative impact of anticancer treatment. What constitutes prehabilitation before non-surgical anticancer treatment is not well established. We present data from a pilot project of Early prehabilitation In lung Cancer.Methods All new patients with likely advanced lung cancer were offered prehabilitation at respiratory clinic, if fit for further investigation. Prehabilitation included assessment and appropriate intervention from a consultant in palliative medicine, registered dietitian and rehabilitation physiotherapist. Four objective endpoints were identified, namely admissions to hospital, time spent in the hospital, treatment rates and overall survival. Outcomes were to be compared with 178 prehab eligible historical controls diagnosed from 2019 to 2021.Results From July 2021 to June 2023, 65 patients underwent prehabilitation and 72% of patients underwent all 3 interventions. 54 patients had a stage 3 or 4 lung cancer. In the prehab group, fewer patients attended Accident and Emergency (31.5 vs 37.4 attendances per 100 patients) and fewer were admitted (51.9 vs 67.9) when compared with historical controls. Those receiving prehab spent a lot less time in the hospital (129.7 vs 543.5 days per 100 patients) with shorter admissions (2.5 vs 8 days). Systemic anticancer treatment rates increased in the short term but were broadly similar overall. Median survival was higher in the prehabilitation group (0.73 vs 0.41 years, p=0.046).Conclusions Early prehabilitation appears to reduce time spent in the hospital. It may improve survival. Further work is required to understand its full effect on treatment rates.<br/

An international, phase III randomized trial in patients with mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (mEOC/GOG 0241) with long-term follow-up: and experience of conducting a clinical trial in a rare gynecological tumor

Objectives We evaluated four different treatment regimens for advanced-stage mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized factorial trial (UK and US). Patients were diagnosed with primary mEOC: FIGO stage II–IV or recurrence after stage I disease. Treatment arms were paclitaxel-carboplatin, oxaliplatin-capecitabine, paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab, or oxaliplatin-capecitabine-bevacizumab. Chemotherapy was given 3-weekly for 6 cycles, and bevacizumab (3-weekly) was continued as maintenance (for 12 cycles). Endpoints included overall-survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL). Results The trial stopped after 50 patients were recruited due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 59 months. OS hazard ratios (HR) for the two main comparisons were: 0.78 (p = 0.48) for Oxal-Cape vs. Pac-Carbo (each with/without bevacizumab), and 1.04 (p = 0.92) for bevacizumab vs. no bevacizumab. Corresponding PFS HRs were: 0.84 and 0.80. Retrospective central pathology review revealed only 45% (18/40) cases with available material had confirmed primary mEOC. Among these, OS HR for Oxal-Cape vs. Pac-Carbo was 0.36 (p = 0.14); PFS HR = 0.62 (p = 0.40). Grade 3–4 toxicity was seen in 61% Pac-Carbo, 61% Oxal-Cape, 54% Pac-Carbo-Bev, and 85% Oxal-Cape-Bev. QoL was similar between the four arms. Conclusion mEOC/GOG0241 represents an example of a randomized rare tumor trial. Logistical challenges led to early termination, including difficulties in local histopathological diagnosis and accessing drugs outside their labelled indication. There was misalignment between central funders who support clinical trials in rare cancers and the deprioritisation of such work by those managing and funding research at a local level. Rare cancer trials should include centralised pathology review before treatment. Clinical trial registry number: ISRCTN83438782