(1) Background: This systematic review was conducted to identify cancer patient experiences, and the impact of out-of-pocket costs and financial burden in Australia. (2) Methods: A systematic review, following the Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted. Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PubMed were searched. The primary outcome was financial burden among cancer patients and their families in Australia. The secondary outcome was out-of-pocket costs associated with cancer care and treatment within the population sample, and the impact of financial burden. (3) Results: Nineteen studies were included, covering more than 70,000 Australians affected by cancer. Out-of-pocket costs varied by cancer type and ranged from an average of AUD 977 for breast cancer and lymphoedema patients to AUD 11,077 for prostate cancer patients. Younger aged patients (≤65 years), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people in rural and/or remote areas, households with low income, those who were unemployed and people with private health insurance were at increased risk of experiencing out-of-pocket costs, financial burden or a combination of both. (4) Conclusions: Australians diagnosed with cancer frequently experience financial burden, and the health and financial consequences are significant. Focusing efforts on the costs of care and options about where to have care within the context of informed decisions about cancer care is necessary.

Aim: To understand the opinions and current practices of health professionals on the topic of addressing cancer-related financial toxicity among patients. Methods:A cross-sectional online survey was distributed through Australian clinical oncology professional organizations/networks. The multidisciplinary Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Financial Toxicity Working Group developed 25 questions relating to the frequency and comfort levels of patient-clinician discussions, opinions about their role, strategies used, and barriers to providing solutions for patients.Descriptive statistics were used and subgroup analyses were undertaken by occupational groups.Results: Two hundred and seventy-seven health professionals completed the survey.The majority were female (n = 213, 77%), worked in public facilities (200, 72%), and treated patients with varied cancer types across all of Australia. Most participants agreed that it was appropriate in their clinical role to discuss financial concerns and 126

Background: The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups.Design and Methods: The implementation framework by Proctor et al. was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the “real-world” environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established.Results: Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention.  Conclusion: While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.

This article summarises and provides commentary upon the case of Peters v East Midlands Strategic Health Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 71 and considers its likely effect on claims for future care in personal injury litigation. In future, there should be less impetus on case managers and deputies to pursue applications for state funding of care packages on behalf of injured claimants, where those claimants intend to claim the future costs of such packages from defendants. A state‐funded package is likely to be regarded as an interim measure pending the Court's final award of damages.

Purpose -This paper aims to outline the duties placed upon public bodies towards children with acquired brain injuries.Design/methodology/approach -The paper outlines the key obligations owed to such children by local authority children's services and health bodies, dealing with the responsibilities of each and the duty to co-operate placed on them. It also discusses the avenues of redress open to families of children with brain injuries and the various ways they can ensure that public bodies comply with their obligations.Findings -The article summarises relevant law and avenues of redress that may be used where duties are not complied with.Originality/value -The paper provides an up-to-date summary of the relevant duties which includes reference to applicable case law and focuses particularly on how the law applies to children with acquired brain injuries.