•ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care are position papers on delivering high-quality care.•Each paper focuses on a tumour type, in this care soft tissue (adult) and bone ...sarcoma.•Sarcomas are rare, and a challenging group of cancers to treat.•High-quality care can only be a carried out in specialised sarcoma units or centres.•The essential, multidisciplinary details for such units are set out by an expert group.
ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care.
ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe.
Sarcoma: essential requirements for quality care
• Sarcomas – which can be classified into soft tissue and bone sarcomas – are rare, but all rare cancers make up more than 20% of cancers in Europe, and there are substantial inequalities in access to high-quality care. Sarcomas, of which there are many subtypes, comprise a particularly complex and demanding challenge for healthcare systems and providers. This paper presents essential requirements for quality cancer care of soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas.
• High-quality care must only be carried out in specialised sarcoma centres (including paediatric cancer centres) which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Access to such units is far from universal in all European countries.
• It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for high-quality comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis and follow-up, to treatment, to improve survival and quality of life for patients.
Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality service for soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a ‘one size fits all’ system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary teams is guaranteed to all patients with sarcoma.
Background: The Tobacco Control Scale (TCS) was first published in 2006 to monitor the implementation of tobacco control policies at country-level in Europe and, since then, every three years a new ...report (2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016) has been published. Our objective was to develop a website to gather and structure the information included in the TCS reports, to provide friendly dynamic graphics for professionals and the public, as well as, to compile other documents and publications derived from the scale. Methods: The original TCS reports were used to bring together all the information and tables included in order to be able to access to all the information from one site. The researchers systematically reviewed all published articles that include the TCS, as main dependent or independent variable and other materials (seminars, photos, etc.) related to the scale. The researchers also generated dynamic graphics for visitors to explore how their countries' scores fluctuate across years and compare with other European countries. The website has been adapted to mobile devices. Results: The website (www.tobaccocontrolscale.org) was launched at the 7th ECTOH in March 2017 in Portugal. It has had 1,556 visits (July 2017): 55.9% direct, 21% referral, 12.9% social (55.7% via Twitter) and 10.2% others; the 73% have been new and 27% returning visitors. By country, 19.7% visitors were from Germany, 8.4% from Switzerland, 8.4% from Spain and 8.2% from the UK. The 17.5% have accessed to the website using either a mobile phone or a tablet. Conclusions: The website has been well received by the tobacco control community with almost 1,600 visits from all over the world; however, more diffusion has to be made to stimulate its use and reach a larger audience in the future that could probably extend the use of the scale for tobacco control purposes.
Young health advocates have the legitimate aspiration to be masters of their future and are increasingly contributing to public health research and practice worldwide, yet their potential to ...contribute to the documentation and communication of outputs from public health conferences has not been fully realised. This short communication highlights the Youth Committee of the 2023 European Conference on Tobacco or Health as an example of youth involvement in a major public health conference focused on tobacco control. The authors explore the benefits, practicalities and challenges of incorporating young professionals into conference workflow, including creativity, networking and engagement with broader public health challenges within their communities. This article emphasises the active participation of Youth Committees in public health fora as a model for future conferences and underscores a commitment to achieving a tobacco-free generation.
•Consultation on the sustainability and monitoring of the European Code against Cancer (ECAC).•The ECAC needs to be continuously updated, optimized, and disseminated.•Cost-effective evidence-based ...population measures to be included.•Synergy with preventive messages for other non-communicable diseases.•Research agenda to complement update and maintenance.
As part of the third European Commission’s Joint Action on Cancer (Innovative Partnership for Action Against Cancer, iPAAC), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was commissioned to produce a report on recommendations to sustain and monitor future updates of the European Code Against Cancer (ECAC).
A co-creational consultation process, including a virtual workshop, was carried out. More than 100 experts in cancer prevention, public health, communication and representatives of European authorities provided input on the scope of future editions of the ECAC, including updating the scientific evidence and its maintenance, and on strategies for its implementation and dissemination across Europe.
Overwhelming support for the need of the ECAC and its continuous updating, optimization and wider dissemination was expressed by all the stakeholders. Eight recommendations and four research needs summarise the assessment and pave the way for the future of the ECAC.
ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific ...tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care.
ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe.
Colorectal cancer: essential requirements for quality care
•Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death in Europe and has wide variation in outcomes among countries. Increasing numbers of older people are contracting the disease, and treatments for advanced stages are becoming more complex. A growing number of survivors also require specialist support.•High-quality care can only be a carried out in specialised CRC units or centres which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Such units or centres are far from universal in all European countries.•It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the essential requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.
Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality CRC service. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a ‘one size fits all’ system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary units or centres must be guaranteed for all those with CRC.
The European Code of Cancer Practice Lawler, Mark; Oliver, Kathy; Gijssels, Stefan ...
Journal of cancer policy,
06/2021, Volume:
28
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Display omitted
•The Code is a citizen and patient-centred accessible statement of the core requirements for good clinical cancer practice.•The Code has 10 key overarching Rights of what a patient ...should expect from their healthcare system, supported by a plain language explanation.•The Code has been co-produced to bridge the gap between clinical guidelines, healthcare policies and patients’ everyday experience.•The Code is robustly evidence-based and supported by a comprehensive review of the medical literature and evidence.•The Code is strongly endorsed by Europe’s professional and patient cancer organisations and the European Commission.
There are considerable disparities between the quality of cancer care and clinical outcomes for cancer patients in different European countries, regions, hospitals and communities. These have persisted despite the introduction of many European and National Cancer Plans, an extensive portfolio of clinical guidelines and the existence of evidence based guidelines for the good practice in planning cancer healthcare systems. We describe the European Code of Cancer Practice which is a citizen and patient-centred accessible widely disseminated statement of the core requirements for good clinical cancer practice. The Code sets out 10 key overarching Rights of what a patient should expect from their healthcare system each supported by a plain language explanation. The Rights highlight the importance of equal access to affordable and optimal cancer care, good quality information about an individual patient’s disease and treatment and about the quality and outcomes of the cancer service they will use. Specialised multidisciplinary cancer care teams, shared decision-making, research and innovation, a focus on quality of life, the integration of supportive and palliative care within oncology are all emphasised. There is a need for a systematic approach to supporting cancer survivors with a survivorship care plan including their rehabilitation, reintegration into society and return to work where appropriate without discrimination.
The Code has been co-produced by a team of cancer patients, patient advocates and cancer professionals to bridge the gap between clinical guidelines, healthcare policies and patients’ everyday experience. It is robustly evidence-based and supported by a comprehensive review of the medical literature and evidence for good clinical practice. The Code is strongly endorsed by Europe’s professional and patient cancer organisations and the European Commission.
ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to map and compare stakeholders’ perceptions of barriers towards cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women in seven European countries.DesignIn Collaborative ...User Boards, stakeholders were invited to participate to identify barriers towards participation in cervical cancer screening.SettingThe study is nested in the European Union-funded project CBIG-SCREEN which aims to tackle inequity in cervical cancer screening for vulnerable women (www.cbig-screen.eu). Data collection took place in Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Portugal and Romania.ParticipantsParticipants represented micro-level stakeholders covering representatives of users, that is, vulnerable women, meso-level stakeholders covering healthcare professionals and social workers, and macro-level stakeholders covering programme managers and decision-makers.MethodsAcross the seven countries, 25 meetings in Collaborative User Boards with a duration of 2 hours took place between October 2021 and June 2022. The meetings were video recorded or audio recorded, transcribed and translated into English for a qualitative framework analysis.Results120 participants took part in the Collaborative User Boards. Context-specific barriers were related to different healthcare systems and characteristics of vulnerable populations. In Romania and Bulgaria, the lack of a continuous screening effort and lack of ways to identify eligible women were identified as barriers for all women rather than being specific for women in vulnerable situations. The participants in Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy and Portugal identified providers’ lack of cultural and social sensitivity towards vulnerable women as barriers. In all countries, vulnerable women’s fear, shame and lack of priority to preventive healthcare were identified as psychological barriers.ConclusionThe study provides an overview of stakeholders’ perceived barriers towards vulnerable women’s cervical cancer screening participation in seven European countries. The organisation of healthcare systems and the maturity of screening programmes differ between countries, while vulnerable women’s psychological barriers had several similarities.
Cervical cancer remains a significant public health concern in Europe. Effective introduction and scaling up of human papillomavirus (HPV) detection-based cervical cancer screening (CCS) requires a ...systematic assessment of health systems capacity. However, there is no validated capacity assessment methodology for CCS programmes, especially in European contexts. Addressing this gap, our study introduces an innovative and adaptable protocol for evaluating the capacity of CCS programmes across varying European health system settings.BACKGROUNDCervical cancer remains a significant public health concern in Europe. Effective introduction and scaling up of human papillomavirus (HPV) detection-based cervical cancer screening (CCS) requires a systematic assessment of health systems capacity. However, there is no validated capacity assessment methodology for CCS programmes, especially in European contexts. Addressing this gap, our study introduces an innovative and adaptable protocol for evaluating the capacity of CCS programmes across varying European health system settings.Our research team developed a three-step capacity assessment framework, incorporating a health policy review checklist, a facility visit survey, and key informants' interview guide followed by a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis. Piloting this comprehensive approach, we explored the CCS capacity in three countries: Estonia, Portugal and Romania. These countries were selected due to their contrasting healthcare structures and resources, providing a diverse overview of the European context.METHODSOur research team developed a three-step capacity assessment framework, incorporating a health policy review checklist, a facility visit survey, and key informants' interview guide followed by a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis. Piloting this comprehensive approach, we explored the CCS capacity in three countries: Estonia, Portugal and Romania. These countries were selected due to their contrasting healthcare structures and resources, providing a diverse overview of the European context.Conducted over a period of 9 months, the capacity assessment covered multiple resources, 27 screening centres, 16 colposcopy and treatment centres and 15 key informant interviews. Our analysis highlighted both shared and country-specific challenges. A key common issue was ensuring high compliance to follow-up and management of screen-positive women. We identified considerable heterogeneity in resources and organization across the three countries, underscoring the need for tailored, rather than one-size-fits-all, solutions.RESULTSConducted over a period of 9 months, the capacity assessment covered multiple resources, 27 screening centres, 16 colposcopy and treatment centres and 15 key informant interviews. Our analysis highlighted both shared and country-specific challenges. A key common issue was ensuring high compliance to follow-up and management of screen-positive women. We identified considerable heterogeneity in resources and organization across the three countries, underscoring the need for tailored, rather than one-size-fits-all, solutions.Our study's novelty lies in the successful development of this capacity assessment methodology implementable within a relatively short time frame, proving its feasibility for use in various contexts and countries. The resulting set of materials, adaptable to different cancer types, is a ready-to-use toolkit to improve cancer screening processes and outcomes. This research marks a significant stride towards comprehensive capacity assessment for CCS programmes in Europe. Future directions include deploying these tools in other countries and cancer types, thereby contributing to the global fight against cancer.CONCLUSIONSOur study's novelty lies in the successful development of this capacity assessment methodology implementable within a relatively short time frame, proving its feasibility for use in various contexts and countries. The resulting set of materials, adaptable to different cancer types, is a ready-to-use toolkit to improve cancer screening processes and outcomes. This research marks a significant stride towards comprehensive capacity assessment for CCS programmes in Europe. Future directions include deploying these tools in other countries and cancer types, thereby contributing to the global fight against cancer.
PDF
