(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.

Despite improved recognition regarding the importance and association between provision of high quality information for people affected by cancer and improved outcomes and experiences; gaps and unmet needs are still reported. As oncology health information provision increasingly moves online, understanding how service users experience and manage misinformation is important. Determining patient and carer preferences regarding cancer provision is needed to address outstanding gaps. This study utilised a purpose-built national cross-sectional survey distributed via social media to assess perspectives regarding cancer information in Australia. Quantitative and qualitative (open text) items assessed respondents' perspectives regarding current inforation preferences and gaps, and experiences with accessing information online. A total of 491 people affected by cancer completed the survey. Respondents highlighted a preference for information that better addresses the diversity of cancer experience, and is more timely and responsive to personal situation and care context. Despite increasing attention to health literacy standards, complex medical jargon and terminology remains prevalent. Many respondents have concerns about misinformation, and seek improved mechanisms or skills to assist with determining the trustworthiness and relevance of information found online. Survey responses identified current gaps in information provision for people affected by cancer. Personalised information in formats which are more flexible, accessible, and responsive to user needs are required. Education and resources to target and improve digital health literacy and combat health misinformation are needed. Novel solutions co-designed by people affected by cancer will ensure that information is provided in a manner that is relevant, timely, and personalised.

Objectives: Through implementation process mapping and thematic analysis, this study aimed to understand existing pathways of established informed financial consent (IFC) processes to develop general recommendations for implementing IFC in various cancer care settings. Design: Implementation science-based process mapping qualitative study. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed the development of interview questions and a process map outlining a normative process or workflow for patient consults was used during the interviews. Setting: Australian cancer care provider health services. Participants: Australian healthcare professionals who provide services to cancer patients and indicated having an IFC process or activities in their service were approached through existing networks to participate in a semistructured interview. Results: Ten healthcare professionals who regularly worked with cancer patients were interviewed. IFC processes varied by professional specialty (ie, general practice, surgery, radiation oncology and medical oncology) and healthcare settings (eg, public and private). An aggregated process map that highlights the key components of IFC processes discussed was created and includes strategies such as centralised points of contact, consolidated information delivery, reiteration of information by others or at various time-points and the use of follow-up appointments to revisit the financial impact of treatment. Interview themes identified barriers and facilitators such as training, resources and templates that to support or hinder IFC in accordance with CFIR domains. Conclusions: The themes and aggregated process map provide timely recommendations for healthcare professionals who provide services to cancer patients to facilitate IFC with their patients prior to treatment or as treatment changes. These practical actions will assist healthcare professionals and services providing cancer care to integrate IFC practices and processes into their routine patient interactions. Further work should identify implementation strategies to integrate and scale-up these evidence-based IFC processes and practices across the healthcare system.

To evaluate if existing Australian public policy related to screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow up care for breast cancer addresses the needs of and outcomes for Indigenous¹ women? This review of policy employed a modified Delphi method via an online panel of experts (n = 13), who were purposively recruited according to experience and expertise. A series of online meetings and online surveys were used for data collection. The aims of the study were to: Identify all existing and current breast cancer policy in Australia; Analyse the extent to which consideration of Indigenous peoples is included in the development, design and implementation of the policy; and Identify policy gaps and make recommendations as to how they could be addressed. The policies were evaluated using ‘A Guide to Evaluation under the Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, 2020’. A list of current breast cancer policies (n = 7) was agreed and analysed. Five draft recommendations to improve breast cancer outcomes for Indigenous women were developed and refined by the panel. Current breast cancer policy in Australia does not address the needs of Indigenous women and requires change to improve outcomes.