Title |
Barriers and facilitators to implementation of cancer treatment and palliative care strategies in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, July 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00038-018-1142-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Andrew Donkor, Tim Luckett, Sanchia Aranda, Jane Phillips |
Abstract |
To appraise improvement strategies adopted by low- and middle-income countries to increase access to cancer treatments and palliative care; and identify the facilitators and barriers to implementation. A systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. Bias was assessed using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, and evidence graded using the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council system. Of 3069 articles identified, 18 studied were included. These studies involved less than a tenth (n = 12, 8.6%) of all low- and middle-income countries. Most were case reports (58%), and the majority focused on palliative care (n = 11, 61%). Facilitators included: stakeholder engagement, financial support, supportive learning environment, and community networks. Barriers included: lack of human resources, financial constraints, and limited infrastructure. There is limited evidence on sustainable strategies for increasing access to cancer treatments and palliative care in low- and middle-income countries. Future strategies should be externally evaluated and be tailored to address service delivery; workforce; information; medical products, vaccines, and technologies; financing; and leadership and governance. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 1 | 10% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
Unknown | 8 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
Researcher | 9 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
Other | 24 | 19% |
Unknown | 53 | 42% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 19% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 12% |
Social Sciences | 10 | 8% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 4% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
Other | 14 | 11% |
Unknown | 54 | 43% |