Survivorship care that is shared between oncology and primary care providers may be a suitable model to effectively and efficiently care for the growing survivor population, however recommendations supporting implementation are lacking. This qualitative study aimed to explore health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation, delivery and sustainability of shared survivorship care. Data were collected via semi-structured focus groups and analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Results identified four overarching themes: (1) considerations for HCPs; (2) considerations regarding patients; (3) considerations for planning and process; and (4) policy implications. For HCPs, subthemes included general practitioner (GP, primary care physician) knowledge and need for further training, having clear protocols for follow-up, and direct communication channels between providers. Patient considerations included identifying patients suitable for shared care, discussing shared care with patients early in their cancer journey, and patients’ relationships with their GPs. Regarding process, subthemes included rapid referral pathways back to hospital, care coordination, and ongoing data collection to inform refinement of a dynamic model. Finally, policy implications included development of policy to support a consistent shared care model, and reliable and sustainable funding mechanisms. Based on study findings, a set of recommendations for practice and policy were developed.

Purpose Limited practical resources exist to guide optimal nutrition care for patients, carers, and health professionals (HPs). This study aimed to co-design a cancer nutrition care pathway to guide and improve the provision of consistent, evidence-based care with consumers and HPs. Methods This study utilised an experienced-based co-design (EBCD) approach over five stages. Stage 1 involved stakeholder engagement and a literature review. Stage 2 included a survey and focus groups with patients/carers. Co-design workshops were conducted within stage 3, key stakeholder consultation within stage 4, and the finalisation and dissemination of the cancer nutrition care pathway formed stage 5. Results of stages 3 to 5 are the focus of this paper. Results Two co-design workshops were held with patients, carers, and HPs (n = 32 workshop 1; n = 32 workshop 2), who collectively agreed on areas of focus and key priorities. Following this, a consultation period was completed with patients, carers, and HPs (n = 45) to refine the pathway. The collective outcome of all study stages was the co-design of a cancer nutrition care pathway (the CanEAT pathway) defining optimal cancer nutrition care that combines evidence-based practice tips into a centralised suite of resources, tools, and clinical guidance. Conclusion The CanEAT pathway was co-designed by patients, carers, and HPs. The EBCD approach is a meaningful way to develop targeted improvements in cancer care. The CanEAT pathway is freely available to guide and support patients, carers, and HPs to aid the implementation of optimal nutrition care into clinical practice.

Purpose: Limited practical resources exist to guide optimal nutrition care for patients, carers and health professionals (HPs). This study aimed to co-design a cancer nutrition care pathway to guide and improve the provision of consistent, evidence-based care with consumers and HPs. Methods: This study utilised an experienced-based co-design (EBCD) approach over five stages. Stage one involved stakeholder engagement and a literature review. Stage two included a survey and focus groups with patients/carers. Co-design workshops were conducted within stage three, key stakeholder consultation within stage four and the finalisation and dissemination of the cancer nutrition care pathway formed stage five. Results of stages three to five are the focus of this paper.Results: Two co-design workshops were held with patients, carers and HPs (n=32 workshop one; n=32 workshop two), who collectively agreed on areas of focus and key priorities. Following this, a consultation period was completed with patients, carers and HPs (n=45) to refine the pathway. The collective outcome of all study stages was the co-design of a cancer nutrition care pathway (The CanEAT pathway) defining optimal cancer nutrition care that combines evidence-based practice tips into a centralised suite of resources, tools and clinical guidance.Conclusion: The CanEAT pathway was co-designed by patients, carers and HPs. The EBCD approach is a meaningful way to develop targeted improvements in cancer care. The CanEAT pathway is freely available to guide and support patients, carers and HPs to aid the implementation of optimal nutrition care into clinical practice.