(1) Background: This systematic review was conducted to identify cancer patient experiences, and the impact of out-of-pocket costs and financial burden in Australia. (2) Methods: A systematic review, following the Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted. Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PubMed were searched. The primary outcome was financial burden among cancer patients and their families in Australia. The secondary outcome was out-of-pocket costs associated with cancer care and treatment within the population sample, and the impact of financial burden. (3) Results: Nineteen studies were included, covering more than 70,000 Australians affected by cancer. Out-of-pocket costs varied by cancer type and ranged from an average of AUD 977 for breast cancer and lymphoedema patients to AUD 11,077 for prostate cancer patients. Younger aged patients (≤65 years), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people in rural and/or remote areas, households with low income, those who were unemployed and people with private health insurance were at increased risk of experiencing out-of-pocket costs, financial burden or a combination of both. (4) Conclusions: Australians diagnosed with cancer frequently experience financial burden, and the health and financial consequences are significant. Focusing efforts on the costs of care and options about where to have care within the context of informed decisions about cancer care is necessary.

Background: High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results: Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions: This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.

Background: The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups. Design and methods: The implementation framework by Proctor et al. was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the “real-world” environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established. Results: Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention. Conclusion: While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.

The implementation of teledermatology, as with other telehealth services, varies across settings. The aim of this study was to use a modified realist review methodology to synthesise factors that lead to successfully implementing and running teledermatology services. PubMed was searched in July 2025 to identify articles published internationally from 2020 to 2025 that provided a description of a teledermatology service and contained the authors' interpretation as to what contributed to the success of the service. The search returned 992 articles and 100 were included in the review after screening. Data was extracted independently by two authors who discussed terminology and interpretation of the independent data extracts. The authors modified the extracted data to ensure consistency in concepts and wording. From the included articles, 45 success factors were identified and coded using qualitative methods into eight themes: (1) Technology and imaging; (2) Hybrid model‐of‐care; (3) Communication; (4) People and staffing; (5) Quality of information; (6) Education and training; (7) Optimisation; and (8) Funding. The top three factors from each theme are explained in detail in this paper, and a full list of all items attributed to successful services is included in Supporting Information. The most common factors mentioned were having high quality images and using a comprehensive referral template. Some factors, such as the broader funding landscape, were acknowledged as contributing to success and represent opportunities for further advocacy. Our findings can be used to develop guidance on future teledermatology service implementation and optimisation.