"There's Not Enough Bodies to Do the Demand": An Exploration of Key Stakeholder Views on the Role of Health Service Capacity in Shaping Cancer Outcomes in 7 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Countries

Comparison of Cancer Mortality and Incidence Between New Zealand and Australia and Reflection on Differences in Cancer Care: An Ecological Cross-Sectional Study of 2014-2018

BACKGROUND

Despite many background similarities, New Zealand showed excess cancer deaths compared to Australia in previous studies. This study extends this comparison using the most recent data of 2014-2018.

METHODS

This study used publicly available cancer mortality and incidence data of New Zealand Ministry of Health and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and resident population data of Statistics New Zealand. Australian cancer mortality and incidence rates were applied to New Zealand population, by site of cancer, year, age and sex, to estimate the expected numbers, which were compared with the New Zealand observed numbers.

RESULTS

For total cancers in 2014-2018, New Zealand had 780 excess deaths in women (17.1% of the annual total 4549; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-18.4%), and 281 excess deaths in men (5.5% of the annual total 5105; 95% CI 4.3-6.7%) compared to Australia. The excess was contributed by many major cancers including colorectal, melanoma, and stomach cancer in both sexes; lung, uterine, and breast cancer in women, and prostate cancer in men. New Zealand's total cancer incidences were lower than those expected from Australia's in both women and men: average annual difference of 419 cases (-3.6% of the annual total 11 505; 95% CI -4.5 to -2.8%), and 1485 (-11.7% of the annual total 12 669; 95% CI -12.5 to -10.9%), respectively. Comparing time periods, the excesses in total cancer deaths in women were 15.1% in 2000-07, and 17.5% in 1996-1997; and in men 4.7% in 2000-2007 and 5.6% in 1996-1997. The differences by time period were non-significant.

CONCLUSION

Excess mortality from all cancers combined and several common cancers in New Zealand, compared to Australia, persisted in 2014-2018, being similar to excesses in 2000-2007 and 1996-1997. It cannot be explained by differences in incidence, but may be attributable to various aspects of health systems governance and performance.

Variation in suspected cancer referral pathways in primary care: comparative analysis across the International Benchmarking Cancer Partnership

BACKGROUND

International variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries.

AIM

To explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Descriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries.

METHOD

Schematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care.

RESULTS

Referral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non-specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision-making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes.

CONCLUSION

Analysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice.

Exploring the Role of Leadership in Facilitating Change to Improve Cancer Survival: An Analysis of Experiences in Seven High Income Countries in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

BACKGROUND

The differences in cancer survival across countries and over time are well recognised, with progress varying even among high-income countries with comparable health systems. Previous research has examined several possible explanations, but the role of leadership in systems providing cancer care has attracted little attention. As part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), this study looked at diverse aspects of leadership to identify drivers of change and opportunities for improvement across seven high-income countries.

METHODS

Key informants in 13 jurisdictions were interviewed: Australia (2 states), Canada (3 provinces), Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and United Kingdom (4 countries). Participants represented a range of stakeholders at different tiers of the system. They were recruited through a combination of purposive and 'snowball' strategies and participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically drawing on the World Health Organization (WHO) health systems framework and previous work analysing national cancer control programmes (NCCPs).

RESULTS

Several facets of leadership were perceived as important for improving outcomes. These included political leadership to initiate and maintain progress, intellectual leadership to support those engaged in local implementation of national policies and drive change, and a coherent vision from leaders at different levels of the system. Clinical leadership was also viewed as vital for translating policy into action.

CONCLUSION

Certain aspects of cancer care leadership emerged as underpinning and sustaining improvements, such as appointing a central agency, involving clinicians at every stage, ensuring strong leadership of cancer care with a consistent political mandate. Improving cancer outcomes is challenging and complex, but it is unlikely to be achieved without effective leadership, both political and clinical.