Increasing global access to cancer care: models of care with non-oncologists as primary providers

Costas‐Chavarri

Manirakiza

et al. 2020

JCO Global Oncology

Self Cite

Rwanda is a densely populated low-income country in East Africa. Previously considered a failed state after the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, Rwanda has seen remarkable growth over the past 2 decades. Health care in Rwanda is predominantly delivered through public hospitals and is emerging in the private sector. More than 80% of patients are covered by community-based health insurance (Mutuelle de Santé). The cancer unit at the Rwanda Biomedical Center (a branch of the Ministry of Health) is responsible for setting and implementing cancer care policy. Rwanda has made progress with human papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B vaccination. Recently, the cancer unit at the Rwanda Biomedical Center launched the country’s 5-year National Cancer Control Plan. Over the past decade, patients with cancer have been able to receive chemotherapy at Butaro Cancer Center, and recently, the Rwanda Cancer Center was launched with 2 linear accelerator radiotherapy machines, which greatly reduced the number of referrals for treatment abroad. Palliative care services are increasing in Rwanda. A cancer registry has now been strengthened, and more clinicians are becoming active in cancer research. Despite these advances, there is still substantial work to be done and there are many outstanding challenges, including the need to build capacity in cancer awareness among the general population (and shift toward earlier diagnosis), cancer care workforce (more in-country training programs are needed), and research.

Section: Cancer Diagnostics Treatment and Palliative Carementioning

confidence: 99%

State of Cancer Control in Rwanda: Past, Present, and Future Opportunities

Costas‐Chavarri

Manirakiza

et al. 2020

JCO Global Oncology

Self Cite

“…This is limited in most low-income countries including those in Africa, given the lack of available physician and nurse oncologists, specialized surgeons, and other experts who are needed for a successful multidisciplinary approach to cancer care. 14 Frequently, a sole expert often decides the entire treatment sequence of a patient. Cervical and breast cancer are the most common cancers in Africa, and both require the involvement of multiple disciplines to deliver evidence-based care.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing Wisely Africa: Ten Low-Value or Harmful Practices That Should Be Avoided in Cancer Care

Mitera

Ka³

et al. 2020

JCO Global Oncology

Self Cite

PURPOSE Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) builds on Choosing Wisely (CW) in the United States, Canada, and India and aims to identify low-value, unnecessary, or harmful cancer practices that are frequently used on the African continent. The aim of this work was to use physicians and patient advocates to identify a short list of low-value practices that are frequently used in African low- and middle-income countries. METHODS The CWA Task Force was convened by the African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer and included representatives from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, the private and public sectors, and patient advocacy groups. Consensus was built through a modified Delphi process, shortening a long list of practices to a short list, and then to a final list. A voting threshold of ≥ 60% was used to include an individual practice on the short list. A consensus was reached after a series of teleconferences and voting processes. RESULTS Of the 10 practices on the final list, one is a new suggestion and 9 are revisions or adaptations of practices from previous CW campaign lists. One item relates to palliative care, 8 concern treatment, and one relates to surveillance. CONCLUSION The CWA initiative has identified 10 low-value, common interventions in Africa’s cancer practice. The success of this campaign will be measured by how the recommendations are implemented across sub-Saharan Africa and whether this improves the delivery of high-quality cancer care.

“…Some oncology training programs may have only local accreditation rather than regional or continental bodies. Furthermore, some regions particularly in LMICs, where there is a shortage of both oncologists and facilities, are using task shifting to train general practitioners who are not formally trained in oncology to deliver safe and effective cancer care [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training of oncologists: results of a global survey

Jalan

Hopman

et al. 2020

ecancer

Self Cite

While several studies have highlighted the global shortages of oncologists and their workload, few have studied the characteristics of current oncology training. In this study, an online survey was distributed through a snowball method for cancer care providing physicians in 57 countries. Countries were classified into low-or lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) based on World Bank criteria. A total of 273 physicians who were trained in 57 different countries responded to the survey: 33% (90/273), 32% (87/273) and 35% (96/273) in LMICs, UMICs and HICs, respectively. About 60% of respondents were practising physicians and 40% were in training. The proportion of responding trainees was higher in LMICs (51%; 45/89) and UMICs (42%; 37/84), than HICs (19%; 28/96; p = 0.013). A higher proportion of respondents from LMICs (37%; 27/73) self-fund their core oncology training compared to UMICs (13%; 10/77) and HICs (11%; 10/89; p < 0.001). Respondents from HICs were more likely to complete an accepted abstract, poster and publication from their research activities compared to respondents from UMICs and LMICs. Respondents identified several barriers to effective training, including skewed service to education ratio and burnout. With regard to preparedness for practice, mean scores on a 5-point Likert scale were low for professional tasks like supervision and mentoring of trainees, leadership and effective management of an oncology practice and understanding of healthcare systems irrespective of country grouping. In conclusion, the investment in training by the public sector is vital to decreasing the prevalence of self-funding in LMICs. Gaps in research training and enhancement of competencies in research dissemination in LMICs require attention. The instruction on cancer care systems and leadership needs to be incorporated in training curricula in all countries.