Barriers to accessing cancer services for adults with physical disabilities in England and Wales: an interview-based study

Epistemic injustice, healthcare disparities and the missing pipeline: reflections on the exclusion of disabled scholars from health research

People with disabilities are subject to multiple forms of health-related and wider social disparities; carefully focused research is required to inform more inclusive, safe and effective healthcare practice and policy. Through lived experience, disabled people are well positioned to identify and persistently pursue problems and opportunities within existing health provisions that may be overlooked by a largely non-disabled research community. Thus, the academy can play an important role in shining a light on the perspectives and insights from within the disability community, and combined with policy decisions, these perspectives and insights have a better opportunity to become integrated into the fabric of public life, within healthcare and beyond. However, despite the potential benefits that could be yielded by greater inclusivity, in this paper we describe barriers within the UK academy confronting disabled people who wish to embark on health research. We do this by drawing on published findings, and via the lived experience of the first author, who has struggled for over 3 years to find an accessible PhD programme as a person with energy limiting conditions who is largely confined to the home in the UK. First, we situate the discussion in the wider perspective of epistemic injustice in health research. Second, we consider evidence of epistemic injustice among disabled researchers, focusing primarily on what philosophers Kidd and Carel (2017, p 184) describe as 'strategies of exclusion'. Third, we offer recommendations for overcoming these barriers to improve the pipeline of researchers with disabilities in the academy.

Do people with disabilities experience disparities in cancer care? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the world's population, live with some form of disability. Recent studies have reported that people with disabilities (PwD) might not be receiving state-of-the-art treatment for cancer as their non-disabled peers; our objective was to systematically review this topic.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to compare cancer outcomes and quality of cancer care between adults with and without disabilities (NIHR Prospero register ID number: CRD42022281506). A search of the literature was performed in July 2022 across five databases: EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Peer-reviewed quantitative research articles, published in English from 2000 to 2022, with interventional or observational study designs, comparing cancer outcomes between a sample of adult patients with disabilities and a sample without disabilities were included. Studies focused on cancer screening and not treatment were excluded, as well as editorials, commentaries, opinion papers, reviews, case reports, case series under 10 patients and conference abstracts. Studies were evaluated by one reviewer for risk of bias based on a set of criteria according to the SIGN 50 guidelines. A narrative synthesis was conducted according to the Cochrane SWiM guidelines, with tables summarizing study characteristics and outcomes. This research received no external funding.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included in the systematic review. Compared to people without disabilities, PwD had worse cancer outcomes, in terms of poorer survival and higher overall and cancer-specific mortality. There was also evidence that PwD received poorer quality cancer care, including lower access to state-of-the-art care or curative-intent therapies, treatment delays, undertreatment or excessively invasive treatment, worse access to in-hospital services, less specialist healthcare utilization, less access to pain medications and inadequate end-of-life quality of care.

DISCUSSION

Limitations of this work include the exclusion of qualitative research, no assessment of publication bias, selection performed by only one reviewer, results from high-income countries only, no meta-analysis and a high risk of bias in 15% of included studies. In spite of these limitations, our results show that PwD often experience severe disparities in cancer care with less guideline-consistent care and higher mortality than people without disabilities. These findings raise urgent questions about how to ensure equitable care for PwD; in order to prevent avoidable morbidity and mortality, cancer care programs need to be evaluated and urgently improved, with specific training of clinical staff, more disability inclusive research, better communication and shared decision-making with patients and elimination of physical, social and cultural barriers.

Restructuring lung cancer care to accelerate diagnosis and treatment in patients vulnerable to healthcare disparities using an innovative care model

The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer is challenged by complex diagnostic pathways and fragmented care that can lead to disparities for vulnerable patients. Our model involved a multi-institutional, multidisciplinary conference to address the complexity of lung cancer care in vulnerable patient populations. The conference was conducted using a process adapted from the problem-solving method entitled FastTrack, pioneered by General Electric. Conference attendees established critical social determinants of health specific to lung cancer and designed a practical care model to accelerate diagnosis and treatment in this population. The resulting care delivery model, the Lung Cancer Strategist Program (LCSP), was led by a lung cancer trained advanced practice provider (APP) to expedite diagnosis, surgical and oncologic consultation, and treatment of a suspicious lung nodule. We compared the timeliness of care, care efficiency, and oncologic outcomes in 100 LCSP patients and 100 routine referral patients at the same thoracic surgery clinic. Patient triage through our integrated care model transitioned initial referral evaluation to a lung cancer trained APP to coordinate multidisciplinary patient-centered care that was highly individualized and significantly reduced the time to diagnosis and treatment among vulnerable patients at high-risk for treatment delay due to healthcare disparities.•To develop the Lung Cancer Strategist Program care model, we used a three-step (Design, Meeting, and Culmination), team-based, problem-solving process entitled FastTrack.•An advantage of FastTrack is its ability to overcome barriers embedded within hierarchal and institutional social systems, empowering those closest to the relevant issue to propose and enact meaningful change.•Under this framework, we engaged a diverse field of experts to assess systemic barriers in lung cancer care and design an innovative care pathway to improve the timeliness and efficiency of lung cancer care in patients at risk for healthcare disparities.

Identifying and Reducing Barriers to Breast Imaging

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to discuss disparities in breast health care access and outcomes related to race, gender, cultural diversity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and disability. The authors recognize the complexity of eliminating inequalities in health care but are optimistic that all patients will one day have equal access to care through dialogue, acknowledgment, recognition, and action.

Recent Findings

After lung cancer, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. Mammography as a preventative screening tool has resulted in significant reductions in breast cancer mortality. Despite existing breast cancer recommendations, it has been projected that 43,250 women will die from breast cancer in 2022.

Summary

Disparities in healthcare outcomes exist for many reasons including inequalities based on race, gender, cultural diversity, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Disparities, no matter how large or complex, are not insurmountable.

Cancer Disparities Experienced by People with Disabilities

People with disabilities, who represent a rapidly growing and seriously disadvantaged segment of the U.S. population, face unremitting barriers to equal and accessible healthcare and a high prevalence of chronic health conditions. A slowly growing body of research suggests multiple cancer-related disparities between people with and without disabilities. This commentary identifies multiple aspects of the cancer experience and highlights ways cancer is impacted by disability. This includes vulnerabilities to risk factors, barriers to accessing healthcare, and disparities in screening, diagnosis, and treatment. The authors offer six essential pathways for reducing cancer disparities faced by people with disabilities. It is clear that reducing cancer health disparities experienced by people with disabilities will require the commitment and cooperation of a wide range of stakeholders.

Access and accessibility to cancer screening for Brazilian women with spinal cord injury

Abstract Objective to identify and analyze the accessibility and accessibility of Brazilian women with spinal cord injury to preventive examinations for breast and cervical cancer. Method quantitative and cross-sectional study developed in a virtual platform. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed, as well as association analysis between qualitative variables using Fisher's exact test. When identified the association (p<0.05), logistic regression was performed. Results a total of 120 Brazilian women with spinal cord injury, aged between 25 and 67 years participated in the study; 85.83% visited a gynecologist after the spinal cord injury, 79.17% underwent cytology and 52.50% underwent mammography. It was observed that women who used the supplementary health plan were more likely to have visited a gynecologist than those who used the public service. Those who had a partner and were older were more likely to have undergone the cytology exam. For mammography, those who were older and who used supplementary health care were more likely to have had mammography exams after the spinal cord injury. Conclusion women with spinal cord injury seek screening tests. However, they encounter difficulties related to the physical structure, equipment, transportation, health professionals, as well as socio-demographic difficulties and difficulties regarding the health service used.

Acesso e acessibilidade ao rastreamento de câncer em mulheres brasileiras com lesão medular

Resumo Objetivo identificar e analisar a acessibilidade e o acesso de mulheres brasileiras com lesão medular para a realização de exames preventivos do câncer de mama e colo de útero. Método estudo quantitativo e transversal desenvolvido em plataforma virtual. Realizadas análises estatísticas descritivas e de associação entre as variáveis qualitativas por meio do teste exato de Fisher. Quando identificada a associação (p<0,05), foi realizada a regressão logística. Resultados participaram 120 mulheres brasileiras com lesão medular com idades entre 25 e 67 anos; 85,83% foram ao ginecologista após a lesão medular, 79,17% realizaram a citologia e 52,50%, a mamografia. Observou-se que as mulheres que utilizavam a saúde suplementar apresentaram maior probabilidade de terem ido ao ginecologista do que as usuárias do serviço público. Aquelas com companheiro e as de maior idade apresentaram maior probabilidade de terem realizado o exame de citologia. Para a mamografia, aquelas de maior idade e que utilizavam a saúde suplementar apresentaram maiores chances de terem realizado o exame de mamografia após a lesão medular. Conclusão mulheres com lesão medular buscam a realização de exames de rastreamento. Entretanto, encontram dificuldades relacionadas à estrutura física, aos equipamentos, transporte, profissionais da saúde, assim como dificuldades sociodemográficas e quanto ao serviço de saúde utilizado.

An emotion-based online intervention for reducing anxiety and depression in cancer patients: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A cancer diagnosis can cause severe emotional distress and affect quality of life as well as social relationships. The transition from inpatient to outpatient treatment is burdened by stressful uncertainties and a gap of psycho-oncological care. In addition, further barriers, such as information deficits or fear of stigmatization, might hinder cancer patients to use psycho-oncological face-to-face interventions. Online interventions can be a low-threshold adjunct to existing face-to-face services. This study aims to evaluate the effect of the online self-help program epos (emotion-based psycho-oncological online self-help) on improving symptoms of anxiety and depression in German-speaking cancer patients.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is carried out in a parallel group design. N = 325 patients will be enrolled in the trial, randomly assigned to an intervention and a control group. While the intervention group has access to nine modules of epos, the control group gets access to an informational website. Participants will complete online questionnaires at baseline (T0), after the intervention (T1) and three-month follow-up (T2). Primary outcome is a combined measure of depression and anxiety. Secondary outcomes include psychological distress, anxiety, depression, quality of life, emotional control, posttraumatic growth, and satisfaction with epos. Participants are at least 18 years old, have a cancer diagnosis, currently receive cancer treatment or aftercare, have sufficient German language competence, and have access to the Internet. Exclusion criteria are severe mental comorbidities (i.e. severe depression, suicidality) or somatic comorbidities (i.e. visual disabilities).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide information about acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of epos in improving symptoms of depression and anxiety in cancer patients and thus contribute to the research on web-based interventions. If found efficacious, epos will improve psycho-oncological care in cancer patients in transition from inpatient to outpatient care and in those who struggle to find adequate psycho-oncological support due to other (perceived) barriers.

Lung Cancer Strategist Program: A novel care delivery model to improve timeliness of diagnosis and treatment in high-risk patients

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer is challenged by complex diagnostic pathways and fragmented care that can lead to care disparities for vulnerable patients.

METHODS

A multi-institutional, multidisciplinary conference was convened to address the complexity of lung cancer care particularly in patients at high-risk for treatment delay. The resulting care delivery model, called the Lung Cancer Strategist Program (LCSP), was led by a thoracic-trained advanced practice provider (APP) with emphasis on expedited surgery and early oncologic consultation in the assessment of a newly diagnosed suspicious lung nodule. We performed a retrospective review to evaluate care efficiency and oncologic outcomes in the first 100 LCSP patients compared to 100 concurrent patients managed via routine surgical referral.

RESULTS

In the 78 LCSP and 41 routine referral patients managed via nodule surveillance, LCSP patients had a shorter time from suspicious finding to work-up (3 vs. 26 days, p < 0.001) and to surveillance decision (12.5 vs. 39 days, p < 0.001). In the 22 LCSP and 59 routine referral patients treated for intrathoracic malignancy, LCSP patients had fewer hospital visits (4 vs 6, p < 0.001), clinicians seen (1.5 vs. 2, p = 0.08), and diagnostic studies (4 vs 5, p = 0.01) with a shorter time to diagnosis (30.5 vs. 48 days, p = 0.02) and treatment (40.5 vs. 68.5 days, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient triage through a thoracic-trained APP in consultation with surgical, medical, and radiation oncology facilitates rapid assessment of benign versus malignant lesions with reduced time to diagnosis and treatment, even among patients at high-risk for treatment delay.

Perspectives of Patients with Pre-existing Mobility Disability on the Process of Diagnosing Their Cancer

BACKGROUND

Mobility disability is the most common disability among adult Americans, estimated at 13.7% of the US population. Cancer prevalence is higher among people with mobility disability compared with the general population, yet people with disability experience disparities in cancer screening and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We explored experiences of patients with mobility disability with the process of cancer diagnosis.

DESIGN

Open-ended individual interviews, which reached data saturation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim for conventional content analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 20 participants with pre-existing mobility disability that required the use of an assistive device or assistance with performance of activities of daily living and who were subsequently diagnosed with cancer (excluding melanoma).

KEY RESULTS

Concerns coalesced around five broad categories: inaccessibility of medical diagnostic equipment affecting the process of cancer diagnosis, attitudes of clinical staff about accommodating disability, dismissal of cancer signs/symptoms as emotional responses to chronic health conditions, misattributing cancer signs/symptoms to underlying disability, and attitudes about pursuing legal action for substandard care. Participants provided examples of how erroneous assumptions and potentially biased attitudes among clinicians interfered with the process of their cancer diagnosis, sometimes contributing to an insufficient workup and diagnostic delays.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical and attitudinal barriers affect the process of cancer diagnosis in people with mobility disability. Though people with mobility disability may be clinically complex, clinicians should be aware of the risks of diagnostic overshadowing (i.e., the misattribution of cancer signs/symptoms to underlying disability) and other erroneous assumptions that may affect timeliness of cancer diagnosis and quality of care. Further efforts, including educating clinicians about challenges in caring for persons with disability, should be considered to improve the process of cancer diagnosis for this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

Exploring Cancer Treatment Experiences for Patients With Preexisting Mobility Disability

OBJECTIVE

We explored the process of cancer care for patients with preexisting mobility disability, focusing on treatment decisions and experiences.

DESIGN

We recruited 20 participants with preexisting mobility disability, requiring use of an assistive device or assistance with activities of daily living, subsequently diagnosed with cancer (excluding skin cancers). We conducted open-ended individual interviews, which reached data saturation and were transcribed verbatim for conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Concerns coalesced around 4 themes: disability-related healthcare experiences affect cancer treatment decisions; concerns about cancer treatment worsening functional impairments; access barriers; and limited provider awareness and biases about treating people with disability. Residual fear from previous medical interventions and concerns about exacerbating functional impairments influenced cancer treatment preferences. Participants also raised concerns that their underlying disability may be used to justify less aggressive treatment. Nevertheless, cancer treatment did exacerbate mobility difficulties for some participants. Inaccessible hospital rooms, lack of accessible medical equipment, and attitudinal barriers complicated treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

People with preexisting mobility disability experience barriers to cancer treatment, compromising quality of care and potentially outcomes. Further training and proactive planning for accommodating disability during cancer treatment and rehabilitation are warranted.

TO CLAIM CME CREDITS

Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME.

CME OBJECTIVES

Upon completion of the article, the reader should be able to: (1) Recognize inadequate accommodations that compromise the diagnosis and treatment of a new cancer in patients with preexisting disability; (2) Recommend involving rehabilitation specialists in the process of care and clinical decision making from the time of cancer diagnosis for patients with preexisting disability newly diagnosed with malignancy; and (3) In the setting of accessibility barriers, facilitate efforts to accommodate patients with preexisting disability to improve quality of care in diagnosing and treating cancer.

LEVEL

Advanced.

ACCREDITATION

The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Exploring the Process of Cancer Care for Patients With Pre-Existing Mobility Disability

PURPOSE

Approximately 13% of the US population report mobility disability. People with mobility disability experience healthcare disparities, including lower rates of cancer screening and substandard cancer care compared with nondisabled people. We explored clinicians' reports of aspects of diagnosing and treating three common cancer types among persons with pre-existing mobility disability.

METHODS

We used standard diagnosis codes and natural language processing to screen electronic health records (EHR) in the Research Patient Data Repository for patients with pre-existing chronic mobility impairment who were newly diagnosed with one of three common cancers (colorectal, prostate, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma) between 2005 and 2017. We eliminated numerous cases whose EHRs lacked essential information. We reviewed EHRs of 27 cases, using conventional content analysis to identify themes concerning their cancer diagnoses and treatments.

RESULTS

Clinicians' notations coalesced around four major themes: (1) patients' health risks raise concerns about diagnostic processes; (2) cancer signs or symptoms can be erroneously attributed to the patient's underlying disabling condition, delaying diagnosis; (3) disability complicates cancer treatment decisions; and (4) problems with equipment accessibility and disability accommodations impede cancer diagnoses.

DISCUSSION

Clinicians view patients with pre-existing mobility disability as often clinically complex, presenting challenges for diagnosing and treating their cancer. Nonetheless, these patients may experience substandard care because of disability-related problems. Given the growing population of people with mobility disability, further efforts to improve care quality and timeliness of diagnosis are warranted.

Exploring attitudes about developing cancer among patients with pre-existing mobility disability

OBJECTIVE

Mobility disability affects approximately 13.7% of the United States population, representing the most common disability type. People with mobility disability experience disparities in cancer screening and higher prevalence of some cancers compared to the general population. We sought to explore the attitudes of people with pre-existing mobility disability about their cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

We conducted open-ended individual interviews with 20 participants who had pre-existing mobility disability requiring use of an assistive device or assistance with performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), subsequently diagnosed with cancer (excluding skin cancers). Interviews reached data saturation and were transcribed verbatim for conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Concerns coalesced around three major themes: sense of control over health conditions, seeking support, and recommendations for other people with disability seeking cancer care. Some participants described feeling a loss of control over their cancer diagnosis that they did not have regarding disability, while others suggested that disability presented greater challenges than their cancer diagnosis. Participants described seeking various forms of support, including emotional support (e.g., from friends and family), informational support (e.g., recommendations for seeking care), instrumental support (e.g., ADLs), and appraisal (e.g., self-reflection of personal qualities for fighting cancer). They provided recommendations, highlighting importance of self-advocacy and being attuned to changes in health status.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that people with pre-existing mobility disability and cancer express complex attitudes towards their cancer diagnosis. Findings may inform efforts to improve quality of relevant supports to meet the psychosocial needs of this population.

Psychiatric disorders and suicide risk among adults with disabilities: A nationwide retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adults with disabilities demonstrate a higher suicide risk than the general population; however, the association between mental illness and death by suicide among disabled adults remains relatively unknown. We aimed to explore the relationship between psychiatric disorders and suicide risk in adults with disabilities.

METHODS

We used nationally representative cohort data and included adults who registered as having a disability from 2004 to 2012, following up with them throughout 2013. We used the clinical diagnoses of all psychiatric disorders as an independent variable and death by suicide as a dependent variable to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) of suicide risk using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Among adults with disabilities (n = 30,386), those who had any psychiatric disorder were at an increased risk of death by suicide compared to those without mental illness (AHR 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.99). Adults with mild disabilities who had psychiatric or mood disorders were more likely to commit suicide than the comparison group (AHR 1.67, 3.00; 95% CI 1.13-2.46, 1.95-4.61, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

The actual time of disability onset could differ from the time of disability registration.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with disabilities who have psychiatric disorders are at increased risk of suicide compared to those without mental illness. During rehabilitation treatment after disability diagnosis, mental health support should be provided to those who have psychiatric illnesses to potentially reduce the risk of death by suicide.

Reducing Barriers to Breast Imaging in Patients with Mobility Limitations

Over 1 billion people worldwide live with a disability. Patients living with disability are often challenged by many barriers to healthcare access, especially preventive and screening services. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 mandated that access to public accommodations related to medical care in the United States be available to all; however, many healthcare facilities fall short of meeting this requirement. Research studies suggest that women with chronic disabilities are less likely to undergo breast cancer screening due to financial, environmental, and physical limitations, as well as psychological barriers. There is scarcity of research on the needs of individuals with mobility impairments and the features of the barriers they face when accessing healthcare services, especially breast imaging services. The objective of this article is to illustrate the existing barriers to breast imaging services that individuals with mobility impairments face and to provide a list of guidelines to be used in clinical practice for breast care practices and medical staff working with patients who have mobility impairments.