FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2573300209> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2573300209 endingPage "323" @default.
• W2573300209 startingPage "316" @default.
• W2573300209 abstract "This paper examines cancer health disparities and contributing factors at national, regional, and international levels. The authors all live in different countries and regions with different health-care systems and practices. Despite the shared cancer nursing perspective, each country or global region approaches cancer disparities differently. With globalization the world is becoming smaller, and in turn becoming interconnected and interdependent. This article focuses on cancer health disparities and global cancer nursing, exemplifying these concepts about the impact and implications of person-centered care. This paper examines cancer health disparities and contributing factors at national, regional, and international levels. The authors all live in different countries and regions with different health-care systems and practices. Despite the shared cancer nursing perspective, each country or global region approaches cancer disparities differently. With globalization the world is becoming smaller, and in turn becoming interconnected and interdependent. This article focuses on cancer health disparities and global cancer nursing, exemplifying these concepts about the impact and implications of person-centered care. Over the past 40 years, cancer nursing care has changed immensely and radically from a gross understanding of the disease to a refined knowledge of molecular and genetic changes occurring at, in, or on the cell. Parallel to this expanding biological knowledge comes growth in other areas of oncology nursing knowledge, as well. This growth in understanding of disease, treatment, and clinical nursing care has allowed a focus on other, albeit different, topics. Over the past few years, health disparities, social determinants of health (SDH), and person-centered care have emerged as areas where nurses can have an impact. Cancer care around the globe is changing at a rapid pace. Yet, these topics have been addressed from a primarily Eurocentric perspective. At the 2016 Oncology Nursing Society, the authors, leaders of global oncology nursing societies, were invited to be on a panel to discuss health disparities from their respective society′s perspectives. Each Oncology Nurses Association is constituted in a different way and for a different purpose. These differences make us similar but not the same, especially when asked to discuss health disparities, SDH, and person-centered care. There were representatives from the Asian Oncology Nursing Society (AONS), the Cancer Nurses Society of Australia (CNSA), the Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology (CANO), the International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care (ISNCC), and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS). The various societies work with nurses who are different from each other as well. The differences arise from the level of education, the oncology nurse role, the geopolitical situation, as well as the health-care and cancer-care systems. This paper outlines health disparities, SDH, and person-centered care through the lens of global cancer nurse leaders of oncology and cancer nursing organizations. We examine cancer health disparities and contributing factors at national, regional, and international levels. We offer possible solutions, like navigation, from an international perspective, focusing on the impact and implications of health disparities and SDH. The authors all live in different countries and regions with different health-care systems and different clinical practices; yet we all share a cancer and oncology nursing paradigm. With globalization, the world has become smaller, more interconnected, and interdependent.1Beaglehole R, Yach D. Globalisation and the prevention and control of non-communicable disease: The neglected chronic diseases of adults. Lancet 903–8.Google Scholar This article illustrates our interconnectedness, interdependence, and differences from the perspective of cancer health disparities and global cancer nursing. The CANO is a national organization established in 1985 with a mission to advance oncology nursing excellence through practice, education, research and leadership for the benefit of all Canadians, and a vision of being an influencing force internationally in cancer control. The association is member-led and takes direction from its membership in formulating activities and initiatives.2The Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology/Association Canadienne des Infirmières en Oncologie (CANO/ACIO).Available from: http://wwwcano-acioca/about_usDate accessed: October 29, 2016Google Scholar One of these initiatives is working with the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer on a pan-Canadian strategy with the goal of all Canadians having access to equitable, person-centered, safe, and high-quality cancer care.3Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Sustaining Action Toward a Shared Vision.Available from: http://wwwpartnershipagainstcancerca/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Sustaining-Action-Toward-a-Shared-Vision_accessiblepdfDate: 2012Date accessed: May 27, 2016Google Scholar4Palaty C Cancer care for all Canadians: Improving access and minimizing disparities for vulnerable populations in Canada. BC Cancer Agency, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Vancouver, BC2008Google Scholar Increasingly, however, health disparities are being documented among cancer survivors who live in rural and remote settings, those with lower socioeconomic status, or who are older, with advanced disease at diagnosis, and in Indigenous and ethnic minority groups, as well as immigrants.3Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Sustaining Action Toward a Shared Vision.Available from: http://wwwpartnershipagainstcancerca/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Sustaining-Action-Toward-a-Shared-Vision_accessiblepdfDate: 2012Date accessed: May 27, 2016Google Scholar4Palaty C Cancer care for all Canadians: Improving access and minimizing disparities for vulnerable populations in Canada. BC Cancer Agency, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Vancouver, BC2008Google Scholar5Ahmed S, Shahid RK. Disparity in cancer care: A Canadian perspective. Curr Oncol e376–82.Google Scholar6Ahmed S, Shahid RK, Episkenew JA. Disparity in cancer prevention and screening in aboriginal populations: Recommendations for action. Curr Oncol 417–26.Google Scholar7Canadian Cancer Society′s Steering Committee on Cancer StatisticsCanadian Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Society's Steering Committee on Cancer Statistics, Toronto, ON2015Google Scholar8Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Examining Disparities in Cancer Control: A System Performance Special Focus Report.Available from: http://wwwcancerviewca/systemperformancereportDate: 2014Date accessed: May 26, 2016Google Scholar9Maddison AR, Asada Y, Urquhart R. Inequity in access to cancer care: A review of the Canadian literature. Cancer Causes Control 359–66.Google Scholar10Sheppard AJ, Chiarelli AM, Marrett LD, Mirea L, Nishri ED, Trudeau ME; Aboriginal Breast Cancer Study Group. Detection of later stage breast cancer in First Nations women in Ontario, Canada. Can J Public Health 101–5.Google Scholar11Withrow D, Marrett LD, Tjepkema M, Nishri D, Pole J. Disparities in cancer survival between indigenous and non-indigenous adults in Canada: Results from a linkage of the Canadian long form census to the Canadian cancer registry. Ann Epidemiol 705.Google Scholar Factors and contexts contributing to health disparities in cancer survivors include (1) personal attributes (biological/genetic endowment); (2) health-care accessibility; (3) acquired health behaviors; and (4) the social, economic, and cultural resources and environments (ie., SDH) of where people live.5Ahmed S, Shahid RK. Disparity in cancer care: A Canadian perspective. Curr Oncol e376–82.Google Scholar12Lalonde M A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians A Working Document. Health and Welfare Canada, Ottawa1974Google Scholar13Raphael D. Health equity in Canada. Soc Altern 41–9.Google Scholar Efforts to address cancer disparities in Canada largely have been aimed at improving access to care, such as through the introduction of nurse navigator roles. In response to a fragmented system of care that marginalizes vulnerable individuals and populations, an evidence-informed Canadian cancer patient navigation agenda has been articulated.14Cancer Journey Portfolio Navigation: A Guide to Implementing Best Practices in Person-centred Care; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.Available from: http://wwwcancerviewcaDate: 2012Date accessed: May 26, 2016Google Scholar Navigation is considered a part of an integrated cancer service delivery program, where navigators, usually oncology nurses, work with patients and families to assess needs, provide supportive care, answer questions, identify and address any barriers to quality care, and facilitate access to needed resources and services. Competencies for nurse navigators align with the CANO Standards and Competencies for Specialized Oncology Nurses15Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology (CANO/ACIO) Standards and Competencies for the Specialized Oncology Nurse.Available from: http://wwwcano-acioca/practice-standardsDate: 2006Date accessed: May 26, 2016Google Scholar and can be found in [Box 1].15Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology (CANO/ACIO) Standards and Competencies for the Specialized Oncology Nurse.Available from: http://wwwcano-acioca/practice-standardsDate: 2006Date accessed: May 26, 2016Google Scholar Various navigation models and programs exist across Canada, contextualized to the unique needs of populations and designed to fit within existing cancer care services. Nurse navigators are placed at different points along the cancer trajectory (from diagnosis, through treatment, and transitions to survivorship), in various care settings (rural, urban, community, and hospital), and to serve diverse populations (grouped by type of cancer, vulnerable groups, or complex health needs). Evaluation of navigation roles and programs is in the nascent stage in Canada with little published evidence related to the impact on reducing disparities. Most studies focus on demonstrating system efficiencies through improved care coordination and timely access to care.2The Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology/Association Canadienne des Infirmières en Oncologie (CANO/ACIO).Available from: http://wwwcano-acioca/about_usDate accessed: October 29, 2016Google Scholar15Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology (CANO/ACIO) Standards and Competencies for the Specialized Oncology Nurse.Available from: http://wwwcano-acioca/practice-standardsDate: 2006Date accessed: May 26, 2016Google Scholar16Fillion L, Cook S, Veillette AM, Aubin M, de Serres M, Rainville F, et al. Professional navigation framework: Elaboration and validation in a Canadian context. Oncol Nurs Forum E58–69.Google Scholar Impacts on patient outcomes have been reported, such as decreased anxiety, improved self-reports of feeling prepared for consultations, and patient satisfaction.3Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Sustaining Action Toward a Shared Vision.Available from: http://wwwpartnershipagainstcancerca/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Sustaining-Action-Toward-a-Shared-Vision_accessiblepdfDate: 2012Date accessed: May 27, 2016Google Scholar16Fillion L, Cook S, Veillette AM, Aubin M, de Serres M, Rainville F, et al. Professional navigation framework: Elaboration and validation in a Canadian context. Oncol Nurs Forum E58–69.Google Scholar Furthermore, even with improved access to care, it is anticipated that navigation will not be the single answer to addressing cancer care equity. A broader approach to addressing root causes that contribute to the development of inequities is needed.4Palaty C Cancer care for all Canadians: Improving access and minimizing disparities for vulnerable populations in Canada. BC Cancer Agency, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Vancouver, BC2008Google Scholar5Ahmed S, Shahid RK. Disparity in cancer care: A Canadian perspective. Curr Oncol e376–82.Google Scholar6Ahmed S, Shahid RK, Episkenew JA. Disparity in cancer prevention and screening in aboriginal populations: Recommendations for action. Curr Oncol 417–26.Google Scholar8Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Examining Disparities in Cancer Control: A System Performance Special Focus Report.Available from: http://wwwcancerviewca/systemperformancereportDate: 2014Date accessed: May 26, 2016Google Scholar Understanding the SDH [Box 2],17Bryant T, Raphael D, Schrecker T, Labonte R. Canada: A land of missed opportunity for addressing the social determinants of health. Health Policy 44–58.Google Scholar including the factors, contexts, and structures that influence opportunities for health, is an essential foundation for moving the health equity agenda forward in Canadian cancer care. The CNSA was founded in 1998. Its beginnings were in the Nurses Group of the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia. Today, CNSA is an independent member-based organization of cancer nurses with over 1000 members throughout Australia. The CNSA is committed to achieving and promoting excellence in cancer care through the professional contributions of nurses. The society acts as a resource for cancer nurses around Australia, whatever the geographical location or area of practice and works with other Australian cancer agencies to address health disparities as a key priority. The CNSA is very cognisant of outcome disparities in Australia and it′s role in addressing these through the contribution of cancer nurses. Cancer Australia is the lead national government agency that makes evidence-based recommendations to the Australian Government about cancer policy and priorities, and Cancer Australia identified key outcome disparity issues in their 2014-2019 strategic plan.18The Cancer Nurses Society of Australia (CNSA) Avaiable from: https://wwwcnsaorgau/about-us/cnsa-historyDate accessed: October 30, 2016Google Scholar Such key issues include people living in remote or very remote areas, those living in low socioeconomic status areas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and those with certain cancer diagnoses. Key evidence highlighted by Cancer Australia is summarized in [Box 3].19Cancer Australia Cancer Australia Strategic Plan 2014-2019. NSW, Surry Hills2014Google Scholar20Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Australasian Association of Cancer Registries. Cancer in Australia: An Overview, Cancer Series No 74 Cat no CAN 70 Canberra; 2012Google Scholar21Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Cancer Australia. Cancer in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples of Australia: An Overview Cancer Series No 78 Cat No CAN 75 Canberra; 2013Google Scholar22Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer Survival and Prevalence in Australia: Period Estimates from 1982 to 2010Cancer Series no 69 Cat no CAN 65 Canberra; 2012Google Scholar Box 1Competencies for specialized oncology nursesFacilitating continuity of care and navigating the systemComprehensive health assessmentSupportive and therapeutic relationshipsTeaching and coachingDecision making and advocacyManagement of cancer symptoms and treatment side effectsProfessional practice and leadership Facilitating continuity of care and navigating the system Comprehensive health assessment Supportive and therapeutic relationships Teaching and coaching Decision making and advocacy Management of cancer symptoms and treatment side effects Professional practice and leadership Box 2Social determinants of healthIncome and income distributionEducationUnemployment and job securityEmployment and working conditionsEarly childhood developmentFood insecurityHousingSocial exclusionSocial safety networkHealth servicesAboriginal statusGenderRaceDisability Income and income distribution Education Unemployment and job security Employment and working conditions Early childhood development Food insecurity Housing Social exclusion Social safety network Health services Aboriginal status Gender Race Disability Box 3Key evidence of cancer health disparities in Australia•People living in remote or very remote areas have significantly higher cancer mortality rates than those living in major cities (196 and 171/100,000, respectively)•People living in lower socioeconomic status areas have both higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than those in higher socioeconomic status areas•Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are 6% more likely to be diagnosed with cancer and 50% more likely to die from cancer than nonindigenous Australians•Some cancers such as brain cancer, pancreatic cancer, and lung cancer have shown only small gains in survival while some other cancers had large survival gains over the past 30 years •People living in remote or very remote areas have significantly higher cancer mortality rates than those living in major cities (196 and 171/100,000, respectively)•People living in lower socioeconomic status areas have both higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than those in higher socioeconomic status areas•Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are 6% more likely to be diagnosed with cancer and 50% more likely to die from cancer than nonindigenous Australians•Some cancers such as brain cancer, pancreatic cancer, and lung cancer have shown only small gains in survival while some other cancers had large survival gains over the past 30 years The data listed in Box 3 highlights the privileged position that Australia has regarding available data and evidence to inform care and cancer service planning. However, it is important to acknowledge the lack of data concerning survivorship and supportive care outcomes due to a lack of relevant routine reporting mechanisms. Until such data are available, a challenge remains to identify and address survivorship and supportive care outcome disparities at the population level. An evidence-based whole-of-system approach to address outcome disparities is critical. Researchers, policy-makers and clinicians are required to work together to ensure that multi-level strategies are informed by data and best practice standards. It is imperative that we understand the experience of outcome disparities from the patients′ and caregivers′ perspectives. We need a deeper understanding of the potential causes or modifiable factors associated with outcome disparities. This will enable us to formulate appropriate strategies that are likely to make an impact. Moreover, we must continue to evaluate the effectiveness including the costs, of strategies using a range of robust research designs. In Australia, navigation is known as care coordination - an intervention that may alleviate some problems associated with outcome disparities. However, given the limited evidence available, it is difficult to determine the extent of the impact that care coordination has on health outcome disparities.23Clinical Oncology Society of Australia. Cancer Care Coordinator Position Statement Sydney; 2015Google Scholar Therefore, care coordination alone is not the solution. It is critical to acknowledge that addressing outcome disparities requires a systems approach that requires collaborative efforts of government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, professional organizations, advocacy groups, local health-care executives/leaders, and health professionals. EONS is a pan-European organization dedicated to the support and development of cancer nurses and cancer nursing across its member countries. The membership of EONS consists of individual members, as well as multiple national societies like the Irish Association for Nurses in Oncology and Verpleegkundigen & Verzorgenden Nederland Oncologie (V&VN). Its strength comes from its partnership not just with cancer nursing organisations but with European multidisciplinary organisations with which it collaborates to optimise the nursing contribution of cancer care in Europe. Through individual membership and national societies EONS engages in large scale projects to empower nurses to better develop their skills, share best practice, network and raise the profile of cancer nursing across Europe.24The European Oncology Nursing Society Avaiable from: http://wwwcancernurseeu/Date accessed: October 30, 2016Google Scholar Therefore, EONS looks at health disparities, SDH, and person-centered care through a different lens than CANO and CNSA. It must do so since, as an organization, EONS works at both the member level but more specifically at the organizational level. Across Europe, cancer is the second most common cause of death after cardiovascular disease.25World Health Organization European Health Report 2012: Charting the Way to Well-being.Available from: http://wwweurowhoint/_data/assets/pdf_file/0004/197113/EHR2012-EngpdfDate: 2013Date accessed: June 14, 2016Google Scholar In the year 2012, 3.75 million new cases were diagnosed with 1.75 million deaths.26Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 1374–403.Google Scholar More worryingly, a European analysis shows a considerable disparity among the different countries. Data from EUROCARE 5, a European collaborative project monitoring population-based cancer survival, demonstrate the different survival rates between countries. For example, in cancers with a mostly good prognosis, the European average 5-year relative survival for breast cancer was 82% while in Eastern Europe it was 10%-15% lower. For prostate cancer, the European 5-year survival rate of 83% is to be compared with 72% in Eastern Europe. Similarly, colon cancer and skin melanoma have lower survival rate in Eastern Europe than the European average 5-year survival.27De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: Results of EUROCARE-5 - A population-based study. Lancet Oncol 23–34.Google Scholar For cancers with a poorer prognosis, there appears to be less variation. The 5-year relative survival European average for lung cancer was 13%, with 11% in Eastern Europe, 10% in Denmark, and 9% in the UK and Ireland. For stomach cancer, the 5-year survival rate was 25%, with 19% in Eastern Europe, 17% in the UK and Ireland, and 16% in Denmark. The 5-year European ovarian cancer survival rate was 38%, with 35% in Denmark, and 31% in the UK and Ireland.27De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: Results of EUROCARE-5 - A population-based study. Lancet Oncol 23–34.Google Scholar Reviewing the data from 7.5 million cancer cases across 29 European countries illustrates that Denmark, the UK, and Eastern Europe have lower survival rate than other parts of Europe.27De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: Results of EUROCARE-5 - A population-based study. Lancet Oncol 23–34.Google Scholar Of particular, concern is the parts of Eastern Europe where mortality rates for many cancers are above the national average. For example, Poland has a lung cancer mortality rate of 83% versus the European Union (EU) average of 56.4%; Romania has a cervical cancer mortality rate of 14.2% versus the EU average of 3.7%.27De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: Results of EUROCARE-5 - A population-based study. Lancet Oncol 23–34.Google Scholar The best survival rates for most cancers are in the Nordic countries except Denmark, Central Europe, and some countries in the Southern Europe, particularly Italy, Portugal, and Spain Table 1.27De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: Results of EUROCARE-5 - A population-based study. Lancet Oncol 23–34.Google ScholarTable 1Examples of cancer survival across European countriesRegion in EuropeCountries5-year relative survival rates of selected cancer sites (%)BreastColonLungOvarianProstateStomachNorthernDenmark81.553.610.335.569.316.0(Nordic countries)Sweden86.061.114.744.187.521.7Iceland87.262.013.939.182.534.5CentralFrance86.159.713.840.188.926.3SouthernItaly85.560.814.338.188.632.4Croatia76.349.614.838.671.321.3EasternBulgaria71.745.26.233.450.511.9Poland71.646.714.434.566.615.6United KingdomUnited Kingdom79.251.89.031.080.617.2 Open table in a new tab The evidence for cancer health disparities between different European countries appears to be influenced by SDH (see Box 2). In Europe, they include lifestyle factors, socioeconomic, and health status, as well as age. While it is tempting to link health care spending as a proxy measure with poor outcomes, such as in Eastern Europe with a shortage of public cancer funding, this does not seem to correlate with the low survival of the UK and Danish cancer patients.28Molassiotis A. The UK and Denmark are still the countries with low all-cancer survival in Europe. Eur J Oncol Nurs 383–4.Google Scholar Extensive analysis would appear to suggest delayed diagnosis possibly linked to advanced stage at presentation and unequal access to treatment.29Mackillop WJ. Killing time: The consequences of delays in radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 1–4.Google Scholar In Eastern Europe, cancer health care may be further compromised by poor infrastructure - no national cancer strategy, poorly implemented screening programs, and fragmented service delivery - less developed cancer clinical pathways and inequitable access to care.30Malicki J, Golusinski W. Challenges in organizing effective oncology service: Inter-European variability in the example of head and neck cancers. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2343–7.Google Scholar Closing the cancer disparity gap across Europe will remain extremely challenging. Strategies will need to be developed internally and targeted at the micro, meso, and macro environments within each country (recognizing that cancer will not be a priority health care issue for all). Workforce and clinical pathways remain fragile in some places and will require strengthening. While health-care resources may need to be increased in some localities, it is possible that best practice sharing and collaborative projects between differently resourced countries may lead to improved outcomes. AONS, was founded in 2013 which is a regional organization with a vision to support cancer nurses in providing high-quality and scientifically-based care to cancer patients in Asia. AONS is committed to advancing cancer nursing in the Asia region through collaborative exchange of clinical practice, education and research among AONS members, developing and disseminating the latest evidence-based nursing practice, and preparing future nurse leaders for cancer care in Asia. Similar to EONS, AONS works more specifically at the organizational level across countries in the Asia region.31Aisan Oncology Nursing Society Avaiable from: http://wwwaonsasia/01_sub/1c_sub02phpDate accessed: October 29, 2016Google Scholar Asia bears a significant cancer burden compared with other world regions, with 48% of new cancer cases and 55% of cancer-related deaths reported in Asian countries.32IARC Globocan 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012.Available from: http://wwwglobocaniarcfr/DefaultaspxDate: 2012Date accessed: May 19, 2016Google Scholar This cancer burden may be fueled by a more pressing problem that of cancer health disparities. In Asia, cancer survival rates in high-income countries (HICs) were found to be considerably higher than those in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Indeed, HICs appear to have a smaller mortality-to-incidence ratio, one indicator of cancer survival,33Wagner SE, Hurley DM, Hébert JR, McNamara C, Bayakly AR, Vena JE. Cancer mortality-to-incidence ratios in Georgia: Describing racial cancer disparities and potential geographic determinants. Cancer 4032–45.Google Scholar than do LMICs.32IARC Globocan 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012.Available from: http://wwwglobocaniarcfr/DefaultaspxDate: 2012Date accessed: May 19, 2016Google Scholar Moreover, ethnic and rural-urban disparities in cancer survival were reported in Asian countries. For example, Uyghurs, an ethnic minority group in China, appears to have a higher cervical cancer incidence than other ethnic groups in the Xinjiang region.34Abudukadeer A, Azam S, Mutailipu AZ, Qun L, Guilin G, Mijiti S. Knowledge and attitude of Uyghur women in Xinjiang province of China related to the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. World J Surg Oncol 110.Google Scholar Meanwhile, in India cancer survival, rates of rural residents are lower than those of their urban counterparts35Swaminathan R, Selvakumaran R, Esmy PO, Sampath P, Ferlay J, Jissa V, et al. Cancer pattern and survival in a rural district in South India. Cancer Epidemiol 325–31.Google Scholar providing evidence of health disparities across and within countries in Asia. Several factors may contribute to cancer health disparities in Asia. There is a lack of governmental health-care funding, a prominent phenomenon in LMICs, and ultimately leading to out-of-pocket health-care expenditure among individuals in LMICs.36World Health Organization Out-of-pocket Expenditure on Health as a Percentage of Private Expenditure on Health.Available from: http://wwwwhoint/gho/health_financing/out_pocket_expenditure/enDate: 2015Date accessed: June 14, 2016Google Scholar It may be difficult for individuals to pay for services such as cancer screening. Moreover, there is a lack of access to health information for ethnic minorities and rural residents in certain Asian countries. Individuals generally possess limited knowledge about cancer and prevention strategies.34Abudukadeer A, Azam S, Mutailipu AZ, Qun L, Guilin G, Mijiti S. Knowledge and attitude of Uyghur women in Xinjiang province of China related to the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. World J Surg Oncol 110.Google Scholar37Tripathi N, Kadam YR, Dhobale RV, Gore AD. Barriers for early detection of cancer amongst Indian rural women. South Asian J Cancer 122–7.Google Scholar Individuals in different countries may not appreciate the importance of adopting a healthy lifestyle and may not use cancer screening and prevention practices. Most health-care professionals prefer to work in urban areas,38Rao M, Rao KD, Kumar AK, Chatterjee M, Sundararaman T. Human resources for health in India. Lancet 587–98.Google Scholar and advanced medical facilities are located in metro areas.39Choi KM. Investigation of cancer mortality inequalities between rural and urban areas in South Korea. Aust J Rural Health 61–6.Google Scholar This lack of health-care access becomes a barrier for rural residents, who may be reluctant to utilize health-care services including cancer screening, due to lengthy travel. Strategies to reduce cancer health disparities include government involvement in screening programs, registries, treatment, survivorship, and palliative care. Asian LMICs should allocate resources to health care despite the costs, enabling individuals to use cancer screening programs. Cancers found through screening programs should be registered. The Cancer Atlas 2016 reported that in Asia only 6% of countries (or regions) have a high-quality cancer registry, compared with 95% of North America and 75% of Oceania. Increasing the number and quality of cancer registries in Asia would provide evidence (data) about the scope of the cancer incidence. As mentioned earlier in this paper, various factors contribute to cancer health disparities and one size does not fit all when considering person-centered care, which should be rooted in the needs of the disadvantaged. Stakeholders should be engaged from nongovernment organizations, ethnic minority associations, government, and health professionals. Navigators may provide low health-literate individuals with information on effective cancer prevention in such a way that they understand cancer. Navigators could facilitate access to health-care services such as cancer screening leading to increased utilization of screening services and effective early detection of cancer. This is especially true of individuals in disadvantaged groups, including ethnic minorities. However, cancer navigation is underdeveloped in Asia when compared with Western countries. The ISNCC is an international membership organization dedicated to improving the health and well-being of people at risk of, or already living with, cancer. It is composed of nursing associations and individual members, and associate members and corporate partners. Through its strategic partnerships and members′ related initiatives, the society influences and participates in setting directions for cancer nursing, health policy, and cancer control initiatives that are intended to improve the health and well-being of people around the world. By promoting the nurse′s role in cancer care, ISNCC leads a global community of cancer nurses to share, discuss, and debate strategies and innovations that advance clinical practice, education, research, management, and leadership.40International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care (ISNCC) Avaiable from: http://wwwcymcdncom/sites/wwwisnccorg/resource/resmgr/About_ISNCC/ISNCC_Bylaws_Final_Designed_pdfDate accessed: October 29, 2016Google Scholar The issue of global disparities in cancer care goes beyond disparities to the need for a serious conversation about health justice. Data from the World Health Organization GloboCan for the year 2012 demonstrate that a significant proportion of new cancer cases is found in HICs. The highest proportion of cancer mortality is found in LMIC demonstrating, once again, that in LMIC a combination of late stage diagnosis, low access to treatment, and a myriad of challenges to the health-care system indicates that where you live when you receive a diagnosis of cancer will determine your chances of treatment and survival. This difference was perfectly illustrated by the International Atomic Energy Agency as displayed in Table 2.41The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Investing in Cancer Care Saveslives and Strengthens Economies in Developing World.Available from: https://wwwiaeaorg/newscenter/news/investing-in-cancer-care-saves-lives-and strengthens-economies-in-developing-worldDate accessed: October 29, 2016Google Scholar Furthermore, the Council on Foreign Relations estimates that from 1990 to 2010, there was a higher than 100% change in disability-adjusted life years, i.e., years of healthy life lost, due to leukemia, breast cancer, and lung cancer in several of the poorest countries in the world.42Council on Foreign Relations The Emerging Crisis: Noncommunicable Diseases.Available from: http://wwwcfrorg/diseases-noncommunicable/NCDs-interactive/p33802cid=otr-marketing_use-NCDs_interactive/#!/Date: 2014Date accessed: June 14, 2016Google Scholar Despite evidence of the devastating impact of cancer in LMIC, the vast majority of international aid programs for LMIC remains focused on communicable diseases. In addition to the existing lack of equity between countries, there are huge disparities within countries, regardless of level of income.Table 2Examples of cancer survival based on country of residence, International Atomic Energy Agency Programme of Action for Cancer TherapyType of cancerCountryExpected 5 year survival rate (%)ProstateAustralia89Uganda46BreastUSA89Jordan43Childhood leukemiaGermany92Mongolia34 Open table in a new tab An example of the global disparities in cancer is lung cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer death globally, and among the top 5 cancer diagnoses in men and women. Tobacco control decreases the incidence and improves the survival of people already diagnosed. Thus, conceptually, a care coordination and integration, or navigation, program could address lung cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, recovery, or palliative care. The reality, however, is that prevention is seldom integrated into a navigation program and tobacco dependence treatment, when available, is seldom integrated in the continuum of care. An opportunity for this integrated and coordinated, evidence-based approach to care therefore exists, but a few challenges need to be addressed. First, the nursing shortage, which is severe in several parts of the world where there is a desperate need for nurses at the bedside carrying heavy patient loads. Second, nurses themselves, who may not see their role as navigators in some countries. Third, nurses in many countries may see the care coordination activities of a navigator as beyond the scope of standard nursing practice. Last but not least, nurses′ basic and postbasic education varies globally, and not all may feel prepared to embrace a navigator role. The cancer health disparities seen in cancer care globally in many ways mirror and are intrinsically related to the disparities we see in the availability of professional nursing globally, particularly nurses that can assist patients throughout the cancer care continuum. Nevertheless, opportunities exist to accelerate the professionalization and implementation of diverse roles for cancer nurses. We have professional organizations that can support each other in building leadership. We have new ways to share expertise through the internet, mobile health, and other innovations that could help nurses, particularly those in LMIC and in deprived areas within HIC to make huge strides toward the implementation of excellence in cancer care. This paper examined cancer health disparities and SDH at national, regional, and international levels. Possible solutions were suggested to address these disparities and improve access to cancer care. Although one size does not fit all, strategies should be focused in the needs of the disadvantaged. The oncology nurses associations are joining hands to support global cancer nurses strive for excellence in cancer care, and to work with all stakeholders together to reduce the global cancer burden." @default.
• W2573300209 created "2017-01-26" @default.
• W2573300209 creator A5024887530 @default.
• W2573300209 creator A5028593306 @default.
• W2573300209 creator A5035398579 @default.
• W2573300209 creator A5040402535 @default.
• W2573300209 creator A5042746473 @default.
• W2573300209 creator A5042928292 @default.
• W2573300209 date "2016-10-01" @default.
• W2573300209 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2573300209 title "Global perspectives on cancer health disparities: Impact, utility, and implications for cancer nursing" @default.
• W2573300209 cites W1482677532 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W1967746118 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W1987210617 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W1990064061 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2019045665 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2024269899 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2035620419 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2058732625 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2079666332 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2103191158 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2108212407 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2110899521 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2117499831 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2131267772 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2132611552 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2168083201 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2212951967 @default.
• W2573300209 cites W2219653684 @default.
• W2573300209 doi "https://doi.org/10.4103/2347-5625.195885" @default.
• W2573300209 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5214864" @default.
• W2573300209 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28083548" @default.
• W2573300209 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2573300209 type Work @default.
• W2573300209 sameAs 2573300209 @default.
• W2573300209 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W2573300209 countsByYear W25733002092018 @default.
• W2573300209 countsByYear W25733002092019 @default.
• W2573300209 countsByYear W25733002092020 @default.
• W2573300209 countsByYear W25733002092021 @default.
• W2573300209 countsByYear W25733002092022 @default.
• W2573300209 countsByYear W25733002092023 @default.
• W2573300209 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2573300209 hasAuthorship W2573300209A5024887530 @default.
• W2573300209 hasAuthorship W2573300209A5028593306 @default.
• W2573300209 hasAuthorship W2573300209A5035398579 @default.
• W2573300209 hasAuthorship W2573300209A5040402535 @default.
• W2573300209 hasAuthorship W2573300209A5042746473 @default.
• W2573300209 hasAuthorship W2573300209A5042928292 @default.
• W2573300209 hasBestOaLocation W25733002091 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConceptScore W2573300209C121608353 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConceptScore W2573300209C126322002 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConceptScore W2573300209C159110408 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConceptScore W2573300209C71924100 @default.
• W2573300209 hasConceptScore W2573300209C99454951 @default.
• W2573300209 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2573300209 hasLocation W25733002091 @default.
• W2573300209 hasLocation W25733002092 @default.
• W2573300209 hasLocation W25733002093 @default.
• W2573300209 hasLocation W25733002094 @default.
• W2573300209 hasLocation W25733002095 @default.
• W2573300209 hasOpenAccess W2573300209 @default.
• W2573300209 hasPrimaryLocation W25733002091 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W2039318446 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W2365364931 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W2418638721 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W2573300209 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W2573300209 hasVolume "3" @default.
• W2573300209 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2573300209 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2573300209 magId "2573300209" @default.
• W2573300209 workType "article" @default.