G Garvey1, B Thewes2, V F Y He2, E Davis2, A Girgis3, P C Valery2, K Giam4, A Hocking5, J Jackson6, V Jones6, D Yip7. 1. Menzies School of Health Research, PO Box 10639, Adelaide Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. gail.garvey@menzies.edu.au. 2. Menzies School of Health Research, PO Box 10639, Adelaide Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. 3. South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW, Sydney, Australia. 4. Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, Royal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, Australia. 5. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Southern NSW Local Health District, Queanbeyan, NSW, Australia. 7. ANU Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Indigenous Australians have a higher cancer incidence, worse mortality and are less likely to receive optimal cancer treatment compared with non-Indigenous Australians. Culturally appropriate supportive care helps ensure that Indigenous patients engage in and receive optimal care. However, many existing supportive care needs tools lack cultural relevance for Indigenous people, and their feasibility with Indigenous people has not been demonstrated. The Supportive Care Needs Assessment Tool for Indigenous People (SCNAT-IP) assesses the unmet supportive care needs of Indigenous cancer patients. PURPOSE: This descriptive study evaluates the clinical implementation of the SCNAT-IP in routine care. METHODS: Two large tertiary cancer treatment centres and two regional oncology clinics participated. Participants included 10 clinical staff and 36 adult Indigenous cancer patients (mean age 54 years). Patients and clinicians completed brief, purpose-designed questionnaires and interviews. RESULTS: Patients reported high ratings (means >8/10) for acceptability, helpfulness and timing items. The majority (≥80%) of staff agreed that the SCNAT-IP was useful to clinical practice, should be used in routine care and was acceptable to their patients. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides empirical support for the feasibility and acceptability of the SCNAT-IP in routine cancer care with Indigenous Australians. Routine screening with the SCNAT-IP has the potential to improve cancer care for Indigenous people with cancer.
INTRODUCTION: Indigenous Australians have a higher cancer incidence, worse mortality and are less likely to receive optimal cancer treatment compared with non-Indigenous Australians. Culturally appropriate supportive care helps ensure that Indigenous patients engage in and receive optimal care. However, many existing supportive care needs tools lack cultural relevance for Indigenous people, and their feasibility with Indigenous people has not been demonstrated. The Supportive Care Needs Assessment Tool for Indigenous People (SCNAT-IP) assesses the unmet supportive care needs of Indigenous cancerpatients. PURPOSE: This descriptive study evaluates the clinical implementation of the SCNAT-IP in routine care. METHODS: Two large tertiary cancer treatment centres and two regional oncology clinics participated. Participants included 10 clinical staff and 36 adult Indigenous cancerpatients (mean age 54 years). Patients and clinicians completed brief, purpose-designed questionnaires and interviews. RESULTS:Patients reported high ratings (means >8/10) for acceptability, helpfulness and timing items. The majority (≥80%) of staff agreed that the SCNAT-IP was useful to clinical practice, should be used in routine care and was acceptable to their patients. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides empirical support for the feasibility and acceptability of the SCNAT-IP in routine cancer care with Indigenous Australians. Routine screening with the SCNAT-IP has the potential to improve cancer care for Indigenous people with cancer.
Authors: Antonella Surbone; Lea Baider; Tammy S Weitzman; Mary Jacqueline Brames; Cynthia N Rittenberg; Judith Johnson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Vanessa Johnston; Darren W Westphal; Marewa Glover; David P Thomas; Catherine Segan; Natalie Walker Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: P Taenzer; B D Bultz; L E Carlson; M Speca; T DeGagne; K Olson; R Doll; Z Rosberger Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2000 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Sydney M Dy; Danetta E Hendricks; Julie R Brahmer; Michael A Carducci; Antonio C Wolff; Albert W Wu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Emma V Taylor; Marilyn Lyford; Michele Holloway; Lorraine Parsons; Toni Mason; Sabe Sabesan; Sandra C Thompson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 2.655