Background Many countries have implemented standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs) to reduce waiting times in cancer care and to ensure timely and quick diagnosis as well as treatment. Yet, no studies have explored the implementation process as perceived by the health care professionals working in the CPPs. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of health care professionals (HPCs) involved in the CPPs. Methods A descriptive qualitative design was adopted. Thematic analysis was applied to individual interviews conducted in 2016–2017 with 58 participants working in six different CPPs in Sweden’s largest region, covering care for around 2.3 million inhabitants. Results In general, the health care professionals had a positive attitude towards the implementation of the CPPs. Our findings showed that the CPPs require close collaboration, both between and within different health care professional groups and units, something that was not always probable due to differences in resource capacity. Better dissemination to all relevant professionals, better conceptualization, and equivalent opportunities in terms of resources were identified by the respondents as being important yet lacking in practice. The analysis showed possible negative effects of the CPP, such as crowding-out on other patient groups. Conclusion The CPPs were introduced to address challenges with long waiting times and unequal cancer care. By exploring the experiences of health care professionals involved in the implementation of CPPs, our findings show challenges with multi-level coordination and collaboration, policy dissemination, and resource constraints. The analysis also showed that the implementation of CPPs risk being accompanied by unintended effects such as longer waiting times for other patients and patient groups in need of the same health care resources. The results shed light on and contribute to an understanding of the challenges, opportunities and ways forward.

BackgroundIn Sweden asylum seekers are offered a voluntary health examination, free-of-charge (HE). The HE coverage is low. The organization and implementation of the HE involves collaboration between different agencies with different roles within the provision of health information and service. This study aimed to assess their perspectives on the barriers and facilitators regarding implementation of the HE, as well as on the purpose, content and value of the HE.MethodThematic analysis of focus groups, individual and group interviews conducted between 2016 and 17 with 41 participants from various authorities and healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of HE in Stockholm.ResultsSuggestions were taken from interviewees of how to facilitate the uptake and delivery of HE through improved outreach to the target group with better collaboration, coordination and continuity between authorities. Apart from control of specific communicable diseases, the perceived ultimate goal of HE varied and was often vaguely formulated. Respondents desired better monitoring to assess the effects of HE and predict needs among asylum seekers. This included standardized procedures to promote equitable health care access and more explicit inclusion of mental health and other health dimensions in the HE.ConclusionThere are several possible avenues for improving HE coverage and uptake. However, ambiguity exists concerning the benefits of such efforts given the uncertainty of the value of HE. Lack of available data on health status, determinants of health and impact of HE among asylum seekers emerged as barriers preventing optimal approaches for the assessment of health needs. Implementation of standardized guidelines, procedures and documentation would aid the understanding. A more holistic approach beyond infectious diseases is necessary. This would only be useful if there is value in screening for such conditions. More research is required to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HE and related screening policies in Sweden.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3422-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background In the implementation of standardized cancer patient pathways (CPPs), the investigatory units, endoscopy, radiology and pathology, are crucial to ensure an eventual cancer diagnosis. However, when evaluating the implementation of CPPs, little attention has been paid to the healthcare professionals working in these units. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of the implementation of CPPs among health professionals in investigatory units. Methods This descriptive qualitative study included 55 health professionals working in investigatory units. Participants were interviewed in 2017–2018, and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results The health professionals reported benefits, facilitators and challenges when describing their experiences of implementing CPPs. Benefits included that CPP improved collaboration and increased focus on the patients. Facilitators in the implementation process included pre-existing well-functioning work processes and having supportive functions (e.g. coordinators). Challenges included the lack of staff and clinical equipment, as well as unjustified time-slots and incorrect referrals. Conclusions The findings show that most health professionals working in investigatory units’ experience benefits with the implementation of CPP, but the lack of resources was especially hard to overcome.

Background There are about 80 million forcibly displaced people globally. Migrants are at heightened risk for mental illness compared to host country populations. While previous research highlights the need to adequately assess mental illness, few have taken the diversity among newly arrived migrants into account. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and associated risk factors of mental illness among asylum seekers, quota and other refugees in Stockholm, Sweden. Methods Using a cross-sectional design, data was collected as part of a mental health screening initiative integrated into routine health examinations in two health care clinics in Stockholm. Screening was done with the Refugee Health Screener, RHS-13, a validated instrument for assessing mental health in refugee populations. Results A total of 1163 individuals were eligible for screening, of whom 566 participated (response rate 48.6%). Among the participants, 47.9% indicated symptoms of mental illness. Compared with asylum seekers, the risk of mental illness was lower among quota and other refugees (adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.00). Female sex, higher age, coming from a middle-income country and low probability of being granted asylum were significant predictors of mental illness. Conclusion Refugee legal status is associated with mental illness. Asylum seekers are at greater risk of mental illness compared to quota and other refugees. Our findings call for screening for mental illness among newly arrived migrants, especially among those with pending residence permits.