New systemic treatment paradigms in resectable non-small cell lung cancer and variations in patient access across Europe

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is set to change significantly due to encouraging results from randomized trials evaluating neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy, as well as adjuvant targeted therapy. As of January 2024, marketing authorization has been granted for four new indications in Europe, and regulatory approvals for other study regimens are expected. Because cost-effectiveness and reimbursement criteria for novel treatments often differ between European countries, access to emerging developments may lead to inequalities due to variations in recommended and available lung cancer care throughout Europe. This Series paper (i) highlights the clinical studies reshaping the treatment landscape in resectable early-stage NSCLC, (ii) compares and contrasts approaches taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for drug approval to that taken by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and (iii) evaluates the differences in access to emerging treatments from an availability perspective across European countries.

Challenges and controversies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a clinician's perspective

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is transforming due to the approval of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recently approved adjuvant osimertinib, adjuvant atezolizumab, adjuvant pembrolizumab, and neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy, and the approval of other agents or new indications may follow soon. Despite encouraging results, many unaddressed questions remain. Moreover, the transformed treatment paradigm in resectable NSCLC can pose major challenges to healthcare systems and magnify existing disparities in care as differences in reimbursement may vary across different European countries. This Viewpoint discusses the challenges and controversies in resectable early-stage NSCLC and how existing inequalities in access to these treatments could be addressed.

Facilitating access to primary care for people living in socio-economically vulnerable circumstances in Belgium through community health workers: towards a conceptual model

INTRODUCTION

Inspired by examples in low- and middle-income countries, 50 community health workers (CHWs) were introduced in Belgium to improve access to primary care for people living in socio-economically vulnerable circumstances. This article aims to explore the ways in which CHWs support people living in socio-economically vulnerable circumstances in their access to primary care.

METHODS

The qualitative research focuses on the first year of implementation of this pioneer nationwide CHW programme in Belgium. To respond to the research aim, thirteen semi-structured in-depth interviews were held with people living in socio-economically vulnerable circumstances. In addition, a photovoice study was conducted with fifteen CHWs comprising four phases: (1) photovoice training; (2) participatory observation with each CHW individually; (3) an individual semi-structured in-depth interview; and (4) three focus group discussions. The transcripts and the observation notes were analysed in accordance with the abductive analysis procedures described by Timmermans and Tavory.

RESULTS

The qualitative results show that the CHWs' outreaching way of working allows them to reach people living at the crossroads of different vulnerabilities that are intertwined and reinforce each other. They experience complex care needs, while at the same time they face several barriers that interrupt the continuum of access to primary care - as conceptualised in the theoretical access-to-care framework of (Levesque et al. Int J Equity Health. 12:18, 2013). Building on the theoretical access-to-care framework described by (Levesque et al. Int J Equity Health. 12:18, 2013), the conceptual model outlines first the underlying mechanisms of CHW-facilitated access to primary care: (I) outreaching and pro-active way of working; (II) building trust; (III) providing unbiased support and guidance in a culturally sensitive manner; and (IV) tailoring the CHWs' approach to the unique interplay of barriers at the individual and health system level along the access-to-care continuum as experienced by the individual. Further disentangling how CHWs provide support to the barriers in access to care across the continuum and at each step is outlined further in the process characteristics of this conceptual model. Furthermore, the qualitative results show that the way in which CHWs support people is also impacted by the broader health system, such as long waiting times and unwelcoming healthcare professionals after referral from a CHW.

DISCUSSION

The conceptual model of CHW-facilitated access to primary care developed in this article explores the way in which CHWs support people living in socio-economically vulnerable circumstances in their access to primary care in Belgium. Through their outreaching method, they play a valuable bridging role between the Belgian healthcare system and people living in socio-economically vulnerable circumstances.

Patient Characteristics Associated with Telehealth Scheduling and Completion in Primary Care at a Large, Urban Public Healthcare System

Understanding patient characteristics associated with scheduling and completing telehealth visits can identify potential biases or latent preferences related to telehealth usage. We describe patient characteristics associated with being scheduled for and completing audio and video visits. We used data from patients at 17 adult primary care departments in a large, urban public healthcare system from August 1, 2020 to July 31, 2021. We used hierarchical multivariable logistic regression to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for patient characteristics associated with having been scheduled for and completed telehealth (vs in-person) visits and for video (vs audio) scheduling and completion during two time periods: a telehealth transition period (N = 190,949) and a telehealth elective period (N = 181,808). Patient characteristics were significantly associated with scheduling and completion of telehealth visits. Many associations were similar across time periods, but others changed over time. Patients who were older (≥ 65 years old vs 18-44 years old: aOR for scheduling 0.53/completion 0.48), Black (0.86/0.71), Hispanic (0.76/0.62), or had Medicaid (0.93/0.84) were among those less likely to be scheduled for or complete video (vs audio) visits. Patients with activated patient portals (1.97/3.34) or more visits (≥ 3 scheduled visits vs 1 visit: 2.40/1.52) were more likely to be scheduled for or complete video visits. Variation in scheduling/completion explained by patient characteristics was 7.2%/7.5%, clustering by provider 37.2%/34.9%, and clustering by facility 43.1%/37.4%. Stable and dynamic associations suggest persistent gaps in access and evolving preferences/biases. Variation explained by patient characteristics was relatively low compared with that explained by provider and facility clustering.