Psychosocial oncology (PSO) advocacy means publicly recommending and defending timely access to comprehensive support for individuals affected by cancer. The CAPO Advocacy Committee (CAC) is currently working toward a shared national advocacy agenda integrating concepts of person-centred approaches and streamlined PSO care pathways. For this purpose, we identified Canadian organizations that advocate for PSO. The CAC now plans to survey these organizations to garner key advocacy priorities. Targeted action items will then be taken back to provincial cancer agencies and national bodies.
Initially, 63 Canadian cancer advocacy organizations were identified. Following information exchange and discussions, 46 were retained for their explicit PSO advocacy activities.
To identify PSO advocacy groups, diverse search strategies were used, including searches on Google, social media platforms, and Medline using relevant keywords and MeSH terms. Multidisciplinary members and patient representatives (N = 12) on our CAPO Advocacy committee reviewed the initial list of advocacy organizations for relevance and proactive PSO advocacy initiatives.
Of the initial 63, 46 organizations were found to primarily focus on enhancing types of and access to PSO support, with 26 being Ontario-based, 11 in Quebec, 4 in Alberta, 2 in Newfoundland and Labrador, 2 in British Columbia, and 1 in Manitoba.
Given the significant number of Canadian PSO advocacy organizations identified, the CAC is now working toward consolidating a priority advocacy agenda with specific action items. The CAC would subsequently seek the endorsement of these action items from key stakeholders including clinical, community, and health and social service decision-makers.
The purpose of this presentation is to discuss strategies to address psycho-social aspects of cancer care for Indigenous people; leading to reduced cancer burden amongst these populations.
Indigenous people face barriers on entering the cancer pathway related to finances, geography and a lack of culturally safe care, including racism. This presentation will introduce practical efforts – both western and Indigenous – that have been made to improve psychosocial care for/with Indigenous people in Alberta.
Objectives:
Indigenous people suffer inequities, resulting in added complexities to meeting their needs and providing the best care. This contributes to extra efforts required by Indigenous CPNs to build relationships across multiple health systems, understand the resources available to different Indigenous groups, have knowledge of different Indigenous cultures/practices, and the skills to support and raise awareness amongst non-Indigenous members of the care team.
Indigenous practitioner-led efforts to ground their practice in Indigenous ways of being, doing and understanding improve cancer care experiences for Indigenous people, alleviate burden of work placed on family caregivers, and build confidence and capacity amongst non-Indigenous care professionals.
Research examples with Alberta Indigenous people will be presented to provide evidence of integrating experiential knowledge into Indigenous professional practice.
Under extraordinary pandemic circumstances, Cedars CanSupport, a charitable organization located in the Cedars Cancer Centre of the McGill University Health Centre, successfully adapted its services from a 32 year history of foot traffic to a calming virtual presence. Compassion, continuity of care, stakeholder engagement, and respect for strict infection control measures were key drivers behind the rapid development and deployment of virtual services and uninterrupted humanitarian aid for cancer patients during the COVID19 pandemic. Paradoxically, a reflection on these best practices brought to light some unintended disparities about equitable access to complementary therapies and other supportive care programs. Drawing on the Cedars CanSupport experience, this presentation will describe the gradual adaptation towards a hybrid approach consisting of virtual complementary therapies, biopsychoeducational workshops, humanitarian aid, as well as outreach to other supportive care services (psychosocial support, palliative care, pain, medical cannabis, rehabilitation, lymphedema clinics) during the pandemic.
A gap analysis was utilized with particular attention to criteria such as acceptability, availability, awareness, accessibility, and affordability.
As health care providers collectively shift practices in a culture-changing COVIDian world, infection control guidelines and live, virtual, or hybrid approaches will become important considerations in the new normal of supportive care programs and services for oncology patients and their families.
Time will be provided to discuss the personal and professional resources needed to maintain equitable access in the face of ongoing uncertainty and change.