BackgroundAboriginal people with cancer experience worse outcomes than other Australians for a range of complex and interrelated reasons. A younger age at diagnosis, higher likelihood of more advanced cancer or cancer type with poorer prognosis, geographic isolation and cultural and language diversity mean that patient pathways are potentially more complex for Aboriginal people with cancer. In addition, variation in the quality and acceptability of care may influence cancer outcomes.ObjectiveThis study sought to understand how care coordination influences Aboriginal people's experiences of cancer treatment.MethodsInterviews with 29 Aboriginal patients or cancer survivors, 11 carers and 22 service providers were carried out. Interviews were semi‐structured and sought to elicit experiences of cancer and the health‐care system. The manifest content of the cancer narratives was entered onto a cancer pathway mapping tool and underlying themes were identified inductively.ResultsThe practice of cancer care coordination was found to address the needs of Aboriginal patients and their families/carers in 4 main areas: “navigating the health system”; “information and communication”; “things to manage at home”; and “cultural safety”.ConclusionsThe CanDAD findings indicate that, when the need for cancer care coordination is met, it facilitated continuity of care in a range of ways that may potentially improve cancer outcomes. However, the need remains unmet for many. Findings support the importance of dedicated care coordination to enable Aboriginal people to receive adequate and appropriate patient‐centred care, so that the unacceptable disparity in cancer outcomes between Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal people can be addressed.
Background: Barriers to receiving optimal healthcare exist for Indigenous populations globally for a range of reasons. To overcome such barriers and enable greater access to basic and specialist care, developments in information and communication technologies are being applied. The focus of this scoping review is on web-based therapeutic interventions (WBTI) that aim to provide guidance, support and treatment for health problems. Objectives: This review identifies and describes international scientific evidence on WBTI used by Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and USA for managing and treating a broad range of health conditions. Eligibility criteria: Studies assessing WBTI designed for Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, USA and New Zealand, that were published in English, in peer-reviewed literature, from 2006 to 2018 (inclusive), were considered for inclusion in the review. Studies were considered if more than 50% of participants were Indigenous, or if results were reported separately for Indigenous participants. Sources of evidence: Following a four-step search strategy in consultation with a research librarian, 12 databases were searched with a view to finding both published and unpublished studies. Charting methods: Data was extracted, synthesised and reported under four main conceptual categories: (1) types of WBTI used, (2) community uptake of WBTI, (3) factors that impact on uptake and (4) conclusions and recommendations for practice.
Previous literature suggests that there is urgency for improved communication and cultural competency in cancer care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients in Australia, with a stronger focus on meeting patient needs and improving HRQL. This review has provided insight into HRQL issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients with cancer in Australia. Further work using patient-reported outcomes measures would provide greater insight into the impact of cancer and biomedical treatments on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients' HRQL.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.