O Ortmann1,2, J Torode3, W Schmiegel4, C Thomssen5, M Hakama6, P Basu7, U Ringborg8, U Helbig9,10. 1. German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany. olaf.ortmann@klinik.uni-regensburg.de. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Regensburg, Landshuter Straße 65, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. olaf.ortmann@klinik.uni-regensburg.de. 3. Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), Geneva, Switzerland. 4. University Clinic at the University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany. 5. University Clinic and Polyclinic for Gynaecology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany. 6. The Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland. 7. International Agency for Research On Cancer, World Health Organisation, Lyon, France. 8. EUROCAN Platform, Cancer Center Karolinska, Stockholm, Sweden. 9. German Cancer Society, Berlin, Germany. 10. Deutsche Krebshilfe, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify key factors for the best practice of knowledge transfer from high-income settings to low- and middle-income settings. RESULTS: Interactive sessions led to the identification of European learnings that can and should be shared beyond Europe. Furthermore, methods were characterised which may lead to successful knowledge transfer with subsequent quality improvement. CONCLUSION: To ensure successful implementation of knowledge and new methods, political support is extremely important. A strong focus should be an improvement of collaboration and network development. Rehabilitation, early and late pallative care, cost effectiveness and long-term follow-up are priorities. Limitations are budget constraints which limit the execution of NCCPs.
PURPOSE: To identify key factors for the best practice of knowledge transfer from high-income settings to low- and middle-income settings. RESULTS: Interactive sessions led to the identification of European learnings that can and should be shared beyond Europe. Furthermore, methods were characterised which may lead to successful knowledge transfer with subsequent quality improvement. CONCLUSION: To ensure successful implementation of knowledge and new methods, political support is extremely important. A strong focus should be an improvement of collaboration and network development. Rehabilitation, early and late pallative care, cost effectiveness and long-term follow-up are priorities. Limitations are budget constraints which limit the execution of NCCPs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer care; Education programmes; Knowledge transfer; Low-income countries; Middle-income countries; National cancer control plan; Quality