Supporting Cancer Patients at Home: The Power of Partnerships in Integrated Care — Doctorhomie & Kapa3

The experience of cancer is not confined to the hours spent at a medical appointment, receiving treatment or being admitted to hospital. A large part of the patient’s actual cancer journey unfolds at home: where symptoms and side effects are managed, medications and appointments are organised, information is sought, work and family life need to continue and, very often, a relative or friend takes on the role of caregiver.

This is why today’s discussion about the quality of cancer care cannot stop at the hospital door.

International literature is increasingly moving towards models of integrated, person-centred and multidisciplinary care, in which health is connected with everyday life, the family, the social environment and the wider community [1,2].

A recent review of health and social care models across the Mediterranean highlights several key elements: a holistic approach, collaboration among professionals, individual empowerment and stronger connections between healthcare services, social care and support at home.

When Home Becomes Part of the Care Pathway

For a person living with cancer, needs cannot easily be divided into “medical” and “social”.

On the same day, someone may need guidance on managing a side effect, assistance with an administrative procedure, information about a benefit or entitlement, psychological support, or access to a professional who can provide care at home.

Cancer also affects employment and financial life. In a population-based study of women with breast cancer, the burden of treatment was associated with significant absence from work and, in some cases, withdrawal from employment altogether, while access to paid sick leave and flexible working arrangements appeared to have a protective effect [3].

The need for integrated support is therefore not an abstract concept. It concerns a person’s ability to continue their life as safely and independently as possible.

What Kapa3’s Everyday Experience Tells Us

Data from Kapa3 – Cancer Patient Guidance Centre reflect this complexity within the Greek context.

Between 27 January and 30 July 2026, Kapa3 recorded 1,251 telephone contacts — 614 incoming and 637 outgoing calls — as well as 497 emails sent to beneficiaries.

Through email-based counselling interventions, 241 people submitted more than 300 requests, covering 52 different categories of need.

Exemptions and social benefits represented the largest category, followed by disability certification through KEPA, the Greek Disability Certification Centres, as well as matters relating to pensions, appeals, healthcare coverage and transportation.

At the same time, requests also concerned palliative care, psychological support, private-duty nursing, hospital beds, personal assistants, home-help services, rehabilitation centres and caregiver leave.

These data remind us of something fundamental:

A person with cancer does not simply need more information. They need support in understanding which information applies to their own situation and what the appropriate next step should be.

Caregivers Cannot Remain “Invisible”

Scientific evidence is particularly clear regarding the burden experienced by family caregivers.

Caregivers are often required to organise appointments, transportation and medication, assist with everyday and sometimes even clinical needs, while at the same time providing continuous emotional support [4].

This burden can significantly affect mental health and quality of life. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported high levels of depressive symptoms, anxiety and psychological distress among family caregivers [5–7].

In advanced cancer, existential distress, anticipatory grief, loneliness and death anxiety have also been described [8]. These rates should always be interpreted as findings from screening assessments and not automatically as clinical diagnoses.

At the same time, social support appears to have a protective effect. A recent umbrella review associated higher levels of perceived social support with reduced caregiver burden and better psychological well-being [9].

This is why contemporary dyadic interventions increasingly view the patient and caregiver as an interconnected system rather than as two independent individuals [10].

Integrated patient care is therefore difficult to achieve when the person providing care remains without adequate information, education and support.

From Information to Navigation

This is where patient navigation plays a critical role.

Patient navigation was developed specifically to reduce barriers, facilitate coordination and support continuity throughout the cancer care pathway. A recent systematic review highlights the contribution of patient navigation programmes in addressing practical and organisational barriers during cancer treatment [11].

This is also the principle on which the Kapa3 model has been developed:

not to create yet another isolated service, but to help people connect with the services and resources that already exist.

A patient should not be expected to know in advance whether their question belongs to KEPA, a social service, a healthcare professional, a psychological support service or a home-care provider.

What they need is a trusted point from which to begin.

Myrto: When Technology Supports Navigation

It is precisely this need that has also led to the development of Myrto, Kapa3’s digital assistant.

Its philosophy is not to replace professionals, nor to turn a complex human journey into an impersonal digital process.

The goal is to create an accessible point of reference where people can express their needs and be guided towards appropriate, evidence-based information and the next relevant step.

Digital health can offer significant advantages: remote access to support, flexibility, easier access to information, personalisation and better coordination [12,13].

Among caregivers of people with cancer, eHealth interventions have also been studied as tools that may support self-management, provide assistance and help reduce caregiver burden.

However, technology does not automatically create equality.

Age, limited digital health literacy, sensory or functional limitations and difficulties in accessing technology can create new forms of digital exclusion [14].

This is why the real question is not “digital or human?”

What is needed is a hybrid model, in which technology reduces distance while human support remains available whenever it is needed.

The Strength of the Kapa3–Doctorhomie Partnership

Within this framework, the collaboration between Kapa3 and Doctorhomie, a digital platform for primary and home-based healthcare, takes on a very practical meaning.

The roles of the two organisations are different, yet complementary.

Kapa3 contributes through the identification of needs, reliable information, social guidance and patient navigation.

When an identified need concerns a healthcare service or professional care at home, the ability to connect with an organised home-care platform can become the next important link in the patient’s pathway.

The logic is simple:

identifying the need → reliable information → navigation → appropriate professional or service → support at home → continuity of care

Quality, after all, does not depend solely on whether a service is available.

Studies in primary care highlight reliability, responsiveness, safety and empathy as fundamental dimensions of the patient experience [15].

Building a Network Around the Person

Integrated cancer care does not mean that one organisation must provide everything.

It means that patients should not be left alone to discover who provides what and where they should turn next.

It also means recognising the caregiver, not underestimating the social and psychological dimensions of cancer, using technology to facilitate access rather than create exclusion, and enabling different organisations and professionals to work together around the real needs of each person.

Because the future of cancer care does not lie only in the personalisation of treatment.

It also lies in the personalisation of understanding, navigation and support.

And that care must be able to follow people wherever life continues:

at home, within the family and throughout everyday life.

Learn more about the Kapa3–Doctorhomie collaboration

The collaboration between Kapa3 and Doctorhomie aims to strengthen support for cancer patients and their families through information, research, innovation and improved connections with home-based care services.

Edited by: Evangeli Bista, PhD(c), MBA, MSc, BSc
Co-founder, Kapa3 / Head of Operations and Development

CANCER PATIENT GUIDANCE CENTRE – KAPA3
13 Kosti Palama Street, 11141 Athens, Greece – 3rd Floor
Tel.: +30 210 5221424
Mobile: +30 690 6265170 (09:00–17:00)
Email: info@kapa3.gr

References

Porcel-Gálvez AM, Allande-Cussó R, Mac Fadden I, Ferentinou E, Zafiropoulou M, Lima-Serrano M. Socio-Healthcare for Older People in the Mediterranean Basin: An Integrative Review and Quality Appraisal. Public Health Nursing. 2024. doi:10.1111/phn.13453.
Phillips JL, Currow DC. Cancer as a chronic disease. Collegian. 2010;17:47–50.
Jagsi R, Abrahamse PH, Lee KL, et al. Treatment Decisions and Employment of Breast Cancer Patients: Results of a Population-Based Survey. Cancer. 2017;123:4791–4799. doi:10.1002/cncr.30959.
National Cancer Institute. Support for Caregivers: When Someone You Love Is Being Treated for Cancer. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health.
Akter J, Konlan KD, Nesa M, Ispriantari A. Factors influencing cancer patients’ caregivers’ burden and quality of life: An integrative review. Heliyon. 2023;9(11):e21243.
Pan YC, Lin YS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of depression among caregivers of cancer patients. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2022;13:817936.
Bedaso A, Dejenu G, Duko B. Depression among caregivers of cancer patients: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Psycho-Oncology. 2022;31(11):1809–1820. doi:10.1002/pon.6045.
Walbaum C, Philipp R, Oechsle K, Ullrich A, Vehling S. Existential distress among family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psycho-Oncology. 2024;33(1):e6239.
Cipolletta S, et al. The Role of Social Support in the Experience of Informal Caregivers of Cancer Patients: An Umbrella Review. Psycho-Oncology. 2026. doi:10.1002/pon.70430.
Li L, Zhu C, Yan Q, Li J, Chen Y, Hu X. Effectiveness of dyadic interventions on quality of life for cancer patients and family caregivers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2025;34(8):3383–3405.
Chen M, Wu VS, Falk D, Cheatham C, Cullen J, Hoehn R. Patient Navigation in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review. Current Oncology Reports. 2024;26(5):504–537. doi:10.1007/s11912-024-01514-9.
Σκανδαλάκη Ν, Κωνσταντινίδης Θ. Παρεμβάσεις ηλεκτρονικής υγείας για την υποστήριξη φροντιστών ογκολογικών ασθενών. Νοσηλευτική. 2024;63(1):17–26.
Li Y, Li J, Zhang Y, Ding Y, Hu X. The effectiveness of e-Health interventions on caregiver burden, depression, and quality of life in informal caregivers of patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2022;127:104179.
Τσόλη Ε, Καυγά Α, Δρακοπούλου Μ, Γκοβίνα Ο, Καλεμικεράκης Ι. Η χρήση της ψηφιακής τεχνολογίας υγείας στους ηλικιωμένους. Αρχεία Ελληνικής Ιατρικής. 2024;41(4):477–484.
Αρμένη ΜΑ, Καυγά Α, Γκοβίνα Ο, Καλεμικεράκης Ι. Αξιολόγηση της ποιότητας των παρεχόμενων υπηρεσιών σε δομές πρωτοβάθμιας φροντίδας υγείας. Αρχεία Ελληνικής Ιατρικής. 2024;41(1):115–121.
Darley A, Coughlan B, Furlong E. People with cancer and their family caregivers’ personal experience of using supportive eHealth technology: A narrative review. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2021;54:102030.
Verma R, Saldanha C, Ellis U, Sattar S, Haase KR. eHealth literacy among older adults living with cancer and their caregivers: A scoping review. Journal of Geriatric Oncology. 2022;13:555–562.
Schiess LC, Song LL, Schädelin S, et al. Nonpharmacologic interventions for managing distress, anxiety, and depression for patients with cancer and their family caregivers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2026;76(2):e70076. doi:10.3322/caac.70076.
Su H, Tam KI, Li Y. Factors associated with death anxiety in family caregivers of cancer patients: A systematic review. BMC Palliative Care. 2026;25:175.
Νικολούδη ΜΕ. Ελληνική εκδοχή του δείκτη ελπίδας Herth σε ογκολογικούς ασθενείς: Ψυχομετρική ανάλυση και μελέτη περίπτωσης. Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών, 2020.

Co-creation in health research: from participation to meaningful influence

A new scientific study proposes a framework for understanding who participates in research, when they participate, how they contribute — and how much influence they actually have

Co-creation is becoming increasingly important across public health, research, social innovation and the design of healthcare services. Patients, caregivers, citizens, healthcare professionals, researchers and communities are more frequently being invited to contribute to the development of interventions, services and solutions.

Yet an important question remains:

What does “participation” actually mean?

The presence of a patient or community representative in a meeting does not necessarily mean that they can influence the design, decisions or outcomes of a research project. Similarly, being asked to complete a survey is fundamentally different from helping to design an intervention, interpret findings or determine how results are shared.

A new open-access study, published on 19 August 2026 in the Journal of Public Health, addresses this challenge. Katrina Messiha, Mai J. M. Chinapaw, Johannes C. F. Ket, Renée I. Wink and Teatske M. Altenburg developed the Co-creation Roles Framework, an operational framework designed to systematically describe and classify the roles of different stakeholders in co-creation research.

Moving beyond “who was involved?”

One of the study’s most valuable contributions is its shift away from simply recording whether stakeholders participated towards examining the nature, depth and quality of that participation.

The framework captures eight key dimensions:

the research stage at which participation occurs,
the target group or stakeholder involved,
the aim of involvement,
how stakeholder knowledge is used,
the level of engagement and influence,
the form of co-creation,
the platform through which engagement takes place,
and the duration of engagement.

The relevant question therefore becomes much more precise than “Were patients or citizens involved?”

Instead, researchers can ask:

When were they involved? What were they asked to contribute? How was their knowledge used? And how much influence did they actually have over decisions?

What did the study find?

To demonstrate the practical application of the framework, the researchers conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidance.

They analysed 39 scientific articles representing 19 youth-focused public health projects based on co-creation, Youth Participatory Action Research or Community-Based Participatory Research approaches.

The analysis revealed substantial variation in the ways stakeholders were engaged.

One particularly striking finding was that, under the strict definition used in the framework, none of the 19 projects reached the highest level of engagement — “empowerment”, where stakeholders hold genuine decision-making authority.

During the implementation stage, consultation and involvement were the most frequent levels of engagement, while consultation was also the most common approach during evaluation.

This finding matters.

It demonstrates that describing a project as “co-created” does not automatically mean that the people for whom an intervention is being developed have meaningful power to shape it.

Participation should not end when the research ends

Another important finding concerned dissemination and reporting.

Only 4 of the 19 projects included a reporting stage extending beyond conventional academic publication.

In some cases, young stakeholders were involved in presenting findings, communicating results within their communities, or developing dissemination materials and practical tools. Overall, however, stakeholder involvement in the final stages of the research process remained limited.

This is highly relevant to health research.

People who contribute their lived experience, time and knowledge to a study should not be considered merely a source of data. They can also play an important role in interpreting findings, shaping key messages and helping return knowledge to the communities from which it originated.

From patient participant to patient co-creator

This discussion has particular relevance for cancer research and cancer care.

Patients and caregivers hold a form of knowledge that clinical evidence alone cannot provide: the lived experience of illness and care.

They understand what treatment means in everyday life; where administrative, social or practical barriers interfere with care; whether a digital health service is genuinely understandable and accessible; which questions remain unanswered; and which outcomes actually matter to the people living with cancer.

Using this knowledge is not simply a matter of representation.

It is a matter of research quality.

For a patient-support organisation such as Kapa3, co-creation therefore means more than inviting patients into an existing process. It requires creating the conditions in which lived experience can become knowledge, knowledge can shape design, and design can ultimately lead to more relevant, accessible and person-centred services.

A framework for planning future research

The authors emphasise that the Co-creation Roles Framework may be valuable not only for describing completed research, but also for planning and evaluating future projects.

Research teams may use it prospectively to clarify stakeholder roles from the beginning, while funders, ethics committees and scientific journals could potentially use such structured approaches to assess how clearly and meaningfully stakeholder participation has been planned and reported.

At the same time, the framework should not yet be regarded as a definitive standard.

The authors explicitly call for external validation across diverse co-creation settings. They also recognise an important limitation: non-academic stakeholders were not directly involved in developing the framework itself, which may limit its sensitivity to some experiential and contextual understandings of stakeholder roles.

Recognising these limitations is itself an important part of advancing more rigorous participatory research.

The next challenge: not simply more participation, but more meaningful participation

Co-creation should not become another box to tick in a research proposal.

The more important challenge is to be able to demonstrate:

who had a voice, when that voice was heard, how it influenced decisions and what ultimately changed because of that contribution.

As healthcare moves towards more participatory, person-centred and digitally supported models of care, the shift from research about patients to research with patients, and ultimately towards research shaped together with patients, may become one of the defining requirements for research that is both scientifically robust and genuinely relevant to people’s lives.

Scientific source

Messiha K, Chinapaw MJM, Ket JCF, Wink RI, Altenburg TM. Development and application of a framework for classifying stakeholder roles in co-creation research: a Health CASCADE study. Journal of Public Health. Published 19 August 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s10389-026-02881-2.

Messiha_et_al-2026-Journal_of_Public_Health

Modern Oncology: When Survival Is Not Enough

New therapies, “hidden” effects and the need to assess not only how long patients live, but how they live

Modern Oncology: When Survival Is Not Enough

New therapies, “hidden” effects and the need to assess not only how long patients live, but how they live

Modern oncology is changing at an unprecedented pace. Immunotherapies, antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), bispecific antibodies and new targeted therapies are creating treatment opportunities that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago.

Cancer treatment is becoming increasingly personalised and tailored to the biological and molecular characteristics of each tumour, while overall survival is being extended for many people living with cancer.

Yet alongside this remarkable scientific progress, a critical question is emerging:

What does it really mean to live longer after — or with — cancer?

A recent Nature Medicine editorial, entitled “Oncology must confront hidden side effects”, highlights precisely this challenge. While cancer drug development is advancing at remarkable speed, the approaches used to record, assess and manage long-term treatment-related toxicities — and their impact on patients’ quality of life — have not evolved at the same pace.

When a “mild” side effect becomes a major burden

Therapeutic success can create a new reality: people are living longer, but some must also manage treatment-related adverse effects for months, years or even for the rest of their lives.

An adverse event classified clinically as low-grade is not necessarily insignificant to the person experiencing it.

A persistent rash, diarrhoea, stomatitis or other symptoms may substantially affect daily functioning, psychological wellbeing and social life when they continue over long periods.

Similarly, some immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors can become chronic, persist for years or even be irreversible.

This highlights an important limitation of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), which are widely used to classify and grade treatment-related adverse events.

The duration of adverse events is not adequately reflected, while functional and psychological consequences may also remain outside traditional toxicity assessment.

As a result, what may be considered “manageable” according to conventional clinical criteria can feel very different to the patient living with it every day.

Quality of life cannot be an afterthought

A second important issue is the timing of quality-of-life evidence.

In some cases, quality-of-life findings are reported considerably later than the primary results of a clinical trial, and sometimes after a new drug has already been approved.

This means that patients making treatment decisions during the early years of a new therapy may not yet have a complete picture of how it could affect their daily functioning, emotional wellbeing and overall quality of life.

At the same time, the questionnaires and tools used to assess quality of life need to evolve continuously.

And this cannot happen without the direct involvement of patients themselves.

The experiences and priorities of people receiving treatment should form part of how treatment impact is assessed, rather than being treated as information that is added later.

The example of daraxonrasib

The Nature Medicine editorial highlights the pan-RAS inhibitor daraxonrasib as a telling example. The therapy has shown important survival benefits for patients with aggressive RAS-driven advanced pancreatic cancer, a setting in which treatment options have historically been limited.

At the same time, most patients experienced acneiform rash, with diarrhoea and stomatitis also reported as lower-grade treatment-related adverse events.

Full quality-of-life data — including information on daily functioning and emotional wellbeing — were not yet available because follow-up remained relatively short.

This example illustrates a much wider issue.

If we know that a therapy can significantly extend life, but we do not yet fully understand what that life will be like, an essential part of the information is missing from the conversation between patients and their healthcare teams.

This also has direct implications for informed consent.

Whenever evidence is available, patients need information not only about response rates and survival but also about the potential short- and long-term consequences of treatment for their everyday lives.

The same treatment is not experienced in the same way by everyone

The toxicity profile of a treatment is not identical for every patient.

It may vary according to the drug’s mechanism of action, a person’s physical condition, co-existing long-term conditions, genetic background and other individual characteristics.

Particular attention is needed for populations that have historically been excluded from, or underrepresented in, clinical trials, as their experiences of treatment-related toxicity may differ.

The editorial points, for example, to sex-related differences in adverse events associated with immunotherapy and racial disparities in adverse events observed with CAR-T cell therapy.

This makes real-world data particularly important.

Clinical trials remain fundamental to establishing the safety and efficacy of new treatments. However, broader use in everyday clinical practice may reveal treatment effects that were not fully captured in the populations included in initial studies.

One example is the bispecific antibody amivantamab in lung cancer, where the full extent and severity of some skin toxicities became clearer after a broader patient population was exposed to the treatment.

Moving beyond clinical silos

This changing landscape also demands a different approach to the organisation of cancer care.

The adverse effects of modern cancer therapies do not always fit within a single organ system or medical specialty.

Traditional clinical and disciplinary silos can limit the transfer of knowledge needed to identify, monitor and manage emerging toxicities effectively.

The response therefore needs to be interdisciplinary.

Collaborative networks, updated guidance, systematic reporting, dedicated registries and effective knowledge exchange are increasingly important so that new or rare adverse effects can be recognised early and managed appropriately.

Above all, the patient voice must be heard

Perhaps the most important change concerns how we define treatment success itself.

Survival remains a fundamental goal of oncology.

But it cannot be the only one.

We also need to understand whether people can work, move, sleep, eat, participate in family and social life, maintain as much independence as possible and manage the effects of treatment on their everyday lives.

In other words, we need to know not only how much time a treatment adds to life, but also what that time means to the person living it.

Patients should therefore not enter the process only at the end, as recipients of treatment.

Their perspectives need to be incorporated from the design of clinical trials and assessment tools through to post-approval monitoring and the real-world use of new cancer therapies.

From survival to living after — and with — cancer

Progress in oncology is undeniable, and it brings genuine hope.

The next challenge is to ensure that longer survival is accompanied by quality of life, functioning, meaningful information, participation and dignity.

Modern cancer care therefore needs to move beyond asking only:

“How much longer can this patient live?”

and give equal importance to another question:

“How will this person live during that additional time?”

For Kapa3, this discussion goes to the heart of truly person-centred cancer care: care that sees not only the disease and the treatment, but the person, their everyday life, their needs, their choices and the life that continues during and after cancer.

Source and references

Main source:
Nature Medicine. “Oncology must confront hidden side effects.” Volume 32, July 2026. Published online 8 July 2026. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-026-04554-9.

Barron CC et al. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer. 2023;11.
Gyawali B et al. Lancet Oncology. 2025;26–e89.
O’Reilly EM et al. New England Journal of Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2605555.
Unger JM et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2022;40:1474–1486.
Rayapureddy AK et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2026;44.
Hines MR et al. Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. 2023;29:438.e1–438.e16.

find more s41591-026-04554-9

Κapa3 at IEEE CBMS 2026 | AI for Equitable Oncology Information

Kapa3 at IEEE CBMS 2026: Artificial Intelligence in Support of Equitable Patient Information in Oncology Care

New scientific publication in the Proceedings of the 39th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems

The voice and lived experience of patients must remain at the centre of the emerging era of Artificial Intelligence in healthcare.

Kapa3 – Cancer Guidance Centre contributes to a new scientific publication presented in the Proceedings of the 2026 IEEE 39th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), focusing on how Artificial Intelligence and Retrieval-Augmented Generation can support more equitable, reliable and patient-centred access to information in oncology.

The paper, entitled:

“Informed, Empowered, and Heard: AI and Retrieval-Augmented Generation as Tools for Equitable Patient Information in Oncology”

is authored by Lars Münter, Evangeli Bista, Maria Lavdaniti and Christos Frantzidis, with Evangeli Bista representing Kapa3 as Co-founder.

From access to information to meaningful patient empowerment

A cancer diagnosis creates an immediate need for information that is reliable, understandable and relevant to the individual patient.

At the same time, patients and their families are often expected to understand complex medical terminology, treatment options, prognosis discussions and administrative procedures at a moment of intense psychological and emotional pressure.

The paper highlights that acute stress associated with a serious diagnosis can affect working memory, attention and the ability to process new information. This means that patient information cannot be designed for an ideal, fully attentive reader; it must respond to the real cognitive and emotional conditions experienced by people facing cancer.

The key question is therefore not simply:

“How much information do we provide?”

but rather:

“Are we providing the right information, at the right time, in a form that people can understand and act upon?”

AI and Retrieval-Augmented Generation: towards trustworthy and evidence-grounded information

The publication places particular emphasis on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

RAG architectures combine the generative capabilities of large language models with the retrieval of information from curated and verified knowledge sources. In a healthcare setting, this can include clinical guidelines, validated patient information resources, regulatory documents and peer-reviewed literature.

This approach offers an important advantage over purely generative AI systems: responses can be grounded in identifiable sources, supporting greater transparency and enabling patients and healthcare professionals to verify where information comes from.

In oncology, this is especially important.

A patient does not simply need a quick answer. They need information that is:

accurate, current, understandable, accessible and appropriate to their individual situation.

Artificial Intelligence as a tool for equity

One of the central themes of the paper is inequality in access to high-quality oncology information.

Geography, language, socioeconomic circumstances, health literacy, digital literacy and access to specialised healthcare services can significantly influence a person’s ability to understand their diagnosis, treatment options and rights.

The publication pays particular attention to the Greek context, where patients living in large urban centres may experience a very different information environment from those living in rural, remote or island communities.

When equity is treated as a core design principle, AI-RAG systems can potentially support:

multilingual access to health information,
different levels of language and information complexity,
voice-based interfaces,
shorter and more manageable units of information,
low-bandwidth or offline-capable solutions,
and opportunities for patients to return to information when they are ready to process it.

Technology alone, however, does not create equity.

The way technology is designed determines whether it reduces existing inequalities or reproduces them.

Designed with patients, for patient needs

The paper calls for an important shift in the way digital health systems are developed.

Many traditional health information systems are designed primarily around institutional or clinical workflows, with patient-facing communication added later.

For patient-centred AI, this logic must be reversed.

Systems should be designed with patients and around patient needs, with patients and informal carers actively involved in shaping the knowledge base, the questions the system is expected to answer and the ways information is presented.

This also means moving beyond systems that simply respond to individual questions.

A meaningful AI-supported information environment could help patients prepare for clinical consultations, organise their questions, understand the next steps in their care and become more aware of their rights.

The paper highlights applications such as consultation preparation guides, question prompts before appointments and post-consultation summaries as examples of how technology can support patients before, during and after important healthcare interactions.

AI should strengthen, not replace, human relationships

Perhaps the most important message of the publication is that the transformative potential of AI in oncology is not primarily technical. It is relational.

Artificial Intelligence should not create distance between patients and healthcare professionals.

It should help strengthen their communication.

A better-informed patient can arrive at a clinical consultation more prepared, identify questions and concerns more clearly, participate more actively in shared decision-making and communicate more effectively with the healthcare team.

The same applies to informal carers, who often carry a significant part of the informational and emotional burden of cancer care.

For this reason, the paper argues that AI-RAG systems should be designed to strengthen the relationship between patients, carers and healthcare professionals, rather than to replace any part of this human network of care.

For healthcare professionals, trustworthy information systems may also reduce the time required for basic information provision, allowing more of the clinical encounter to focus on nuanced discussions, decision-making and the human aspects of care that technology cannot replicate.

From information to trust

This scientific contribution adds to an increasingly important discussion about the future of healthcare:

How can Artificial Intelligence be developed and used in ways that genuinely respond to human needs?

The answer does not lie only in more powerful AI models or larger volumes of data.

It also lies in evidence, transparency, accessibility, co-design, equity and respect for patient rights.

As the paper concludes, people affected by cancer in Greece and across Europe deserve access to information that is accurate, personalised, accessible and respectful of their rights, regardless of where they live, the language they speak or the socioeconomic resources available to them.

For Kapa3, participating in this scientific discussion also reflects a broader commitment: ensuring that real patient needs, lived experience and equitable access are represented in the design and evaluation of the next generation of digital health and AI-supported tools.

Publication details

Title: Informed, Empowered, and Heard: AI and Retrieval-Augmented Generation as Tools for Equitable Patient Information in Oncology

Authors: Lars Münter, Evangeli Bista, Maria Lavdaniti, Christos Frantzidis

Published in: 2026 IEEE 39th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS)

DOI: 10.1109/CBMS69103.2026.00302

find more 499901b523

Kapa3 joins PERIFORMANCE: From Information to Trust in Cancer Care

Kapa3 – Cancer Guidance Centre is pleased to announce that its proposal, “From Information to Trust: MYRTO Patient & Citizen Lab for Equal Access in Cancer Care,” has been selected for funding under the PERIFORMANCE Open Call for Bottom-Up Stakeholder Engagement Initiatives in Cancer Research & Care.

The initiative places patients, caregivers, healthcare and social care professionals, civil society organisations and local communities at the heart of the process, creating a participatory framework for the ethical, trustworthy and inclusive use of AI-enabled cancer navigation.

Putting patients and citizens at the centre

The project is closely linked to MYRTO, Kapa3’s AI-enabled digital social assistant designed to support people affected by cancer in navigating health, social care, administrative procedures and rights-related information.

PERIFORMANCE funding will not support the core technical development of MYRTO. Instead, the project will focus on building the participatory, educational and ethical layer around the tool, ensuring that its future development is shaped by the real needs, experiences and expectations of the people who will use it.

This approach reflects a key principle for Kapa3: technology should not replace human care. When designed responsibly, however, it can become a powerful tool for improving access, empowerment and equality.

From local communities to a national dialogue

The engagement pathway will include regional listening activities, a thematic focus on vulnerable and underrepresented groups, and a central MYRTO Patient & Citizen Lab in Athens.

Particular attention will be given to caregivers, older patients, migrants, people with disabilities, people with low health or digital literacy, socially vulnerable groups and people living far from specialised oncology services.

The Athens Lab will be integrated into Kapa3’s national conference “Equality in Access”, creating a space for synthesising regional experiences, identifying trust criteria and collecting patient and caregiver perspectives on AI-supported navigation.

What does trust in AI-supported cancer navigation mean?

At the heart of the project lies a fundamental question:

What does a person need in order to trust a digital tool during one of the most sensitive periods of their life?

Through co-creation and stakeholder engagement, the initiative will explore issues such as:

reliability and clarity of information,
data protection and privacy,
accessibility and digital inclusion,
responsible use of Artificial Intelligence,
prevention of bias and exclusion,
human oversight,
and clear referral pathways to appropriate professionals when human support is needed.

Bringing together science, civil society and lived experience

Kapa3 will coordinate the initiative and lead its design, implementation, facilitation, patient and community outreach, dissemination and reporting.

The project will be supported by a multidisciplinary academic and scientific collaboration network involving the International Hellenic University – Department of Nursing, University of West Attica – Department of Occupational Therapy, Democritus University of Thrace – Department of Social Work, and University of the Peloponnese – Department of Nursing. simasiaAI will provide technical support for MYRTO-related digital materials and the AI navigation environment.

The project is expected to produce practical resources including a Patient Guidance Toolkit, a Trust & Human Escalation Checklist, a Training and Dissemination Package, and an Engagement & Trust Report.

From information to trust

For Kapa3, participation in PERIFORMANCE marks another step towards ensuring that the patient voice is present not only when new services and technologies are evaluated, but from the very beginning of their design.

With MYRTO, the question is no longer simply:

“How can we provide more information?”

It is increasingly:

“How can we turn information into understanding, trust, safety and real access?”

Because responsible digital health innovation begins with people.

Evangeli Bista Joins the PATH Expert Group as an Independent Expert: Bringing the Patient Perspective into the New Era of AI in Cancer Care

A new contribution to the European dialogue on safe, responsible and human-centred Artificial Intelligence in healthcare

Evangeli Bista, Co-founder and Head of Operations and Development of Kapa3 – Cancer Guidance Centre, has been invited to join the Expert Group of the European research and innovation project PATH – Patient AI Treatment Hub as an independent expert.

Her participation is undertaken in a personal and independent capacity, with her professional affiliation to Kapa3 – Cancer Guidance Centre, creating an opportunity to bring into the European dialogue experience gained through direct engagement with people affected by cancer, survivors, caregivers and healthcare professionals. The PATH Terms explicitly define Expert Group members as acting independently rather than as partners, employees, agents or subcontractors of the Consortium.

What is PATH – Patient AI Treatment Hub?

PATH – Patient AI Treatment Hub is a European research and innovation project focused on supporting the safe and effective integration of Artificial Intelligence into cancer care through the development of a secure, interoperable and privacy-preserving digital platform.

The project aims to explore how Artificial Intelligence tools can be safely integrated into cancer-care pathways, supporting healthcare professionals and contributing to more personalised approaches while safeguarding privacy and health data.

At the heart of this effort lies a critical question:

How can technological innovation create meaningful value for patients while preserving trust, human oversight, safety and equity?

Participation in the PATH Expert Group

As a member of the PATH Expert Group, Evangeli Bista will contribute independent expertise, opinions, input, comments and feedback in relation to selected project use cases and activities.

The experience developed through Kapa3’s work can contribute to discussions around issues such as:

patient-centred cancer care,
patient navigation across health and social-care systems,
equitable access to information and services,
health and digital literacy,
health and social rights,
responsible use and protection of health data,
transparency and human oversight in Artificial Intelligence systems,
meaningful involvement of patients and civil society in technology design,
and translating technological innovation into real value for people.

Why the Patient Voice Must Be Part of Innovation

Artificial Intelligence is creating new possibilities for healthcare and cancer care. At the same time, its growing use raises important questions concerning trust, transparency, safety, equitable access and human oversight.

For Kapa3, the development of a digital solution cannot begin solely with the question of what is technologically possible.

It must also ask:

What does the patient actually need?

Can people understand the information they receive?

Do they know where that information comes from?

Can they trust the system?

Is it clear when Artificial Intelligence is being used and when human professional judgement is required?

Could digital inequalities lead to new inequalities in healthcare?

And ultimately, does innovation genuinely improve the experience and pathway of a person facing cancer?

These are questions that we believe should remain at the centre of the European discussion on Artificial Intelligence in healthcare.

Kapa3’s experience in digital health

Evangeli Bista’s participation in the PATH Expert Group comes at a time when Kapa3 is systematically expanding its work in digital health, patient navigation and the responsible use of emerging technologies to support people affected by cancer.

This broader work also includes MYRTO – Digital Navigator for Health and Social Rights, an independent Kapa3 initiative developed to help transform complex and often fragmented information on rights, benefits and administrative procedures into more accessible, structured and evidence-based guidance for patients and caregivers.

MYRTO is not part of PATH, and the two initiatives are independent from one another.

However, the experience of developing patient-facing digital services has reinforced several principles that Kapa3 considers essential:

reliable information, transparent sources, understandable communication, data protection, human oversight and a clear pathway to professional support when technology alone is not enough.

This distinction is also important from an intellectual-property perspective, since the PATH Terms preserve intellectual property that exists independently of the Expert’s Services and is not incorporated into PATH Contributions.

From information to trust

Digital transformation in healthcare is not simply about more data, more algorithms or more applications.

It is about creating greater understanding, better access and stronger trust.

For a person facing cancer, information has value when it can be translated into a meaningful next step.

Technology has value when it reduces — rather than increases — complexity.

And Artificial Intelligence has value when it strengthens, rather than replaces, human care, professional judgement and the patient’s ability to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their life and health.

A new opportunity to contribute to the European dialogue

For Kapa3, the invitation to Evangeli Bista to participate as an independent expert in the PATH Expert Group represents an important opportunity to bring into the European dialogue experience, needs and concerns emerging from the real-world context of cancer care and patient support.

The objective remains clear:

Artificial Intelligence in healthcare should advance with safety, transparency, responsibility, equitable access and meaningful involvement of the people it is designed to serve.

Because innovation creates real value when it is designed with people and for people.

PATH – Patient AI Treatment Hub | At a glance

Field: Artificial Intelligence and data in cancer care
Project: PATH – Patient AI Treatment Hub
Focus: Safe and effective integration of AI into cancer care through secure, interoperable and privacy-preserving approaches.
Expert Group: Independent external experts providing expertise, opinions, input, comments and feedback to the Project.
Independent Expert: Evangeli Bista
Professional role: Co-founder & Head of Operations and Development
Affiliation: Kapa3 – Cancer Guidance Centre

The Value of Pause: Why We Need to “Disconnect” Even During Treatment

Summer is often associated with the idea of holidays. Images of the sea, travel, and carefree moments fill our daily lives, creating the impression that rest requires a suitcase, a destination, and distance from obligations.

However, for cancer patients who are undergoing treatment, recovering from surgery, or waiting for test results, holidays are often not possible. Medical appointments, treatments, side effects, physical fatigue, and uncertainty about one’s health can make travelling difficult or even impossible.

And yet, the need for rest does not diminish. On the contrary, it often becomes even more important.

Perhaps, then, it is worth redefining what a “holiday” means. Not as travelling somewhere else, but as the ability to pause, even briefly, the relentless cycle of stress, worry, and constant vigilance that often accompanies serious illness. It can be a reminder that life is not only about the disease.

Rest is not a luxury — it is a need

Recent scientific literature shows that people need periods of recovery in order to maintain psychological and physical balance. Recovery is not simply “resting”; it is a process through which the body reduces the physiological and psychological burden caused by chronic stress.

In psychology, the term psychological detachment is used to describe the mental ability to step away from sources of pressure. This means allowing oneself, even for a short while, not to think constantly about what feels overwhelming.

Research by Sonnentag, Binnewies, and Mojza (2010) showed that psychological detachment is associated with lower emotional exhaustion, better mood, and greater resilience in everyday life. Similarly, Fritz and colleagues (2010) found that people who are able to mentally disengage from stress experience higher levels of well-being, energy, and functioning.

Although these studies were mainly conducted among workers, the underlying mechanism applies to every person: when the brain remains in a constant state of alert, it struggles to recover its strength.

In this sense, these small pauses matter not because they make us “forget” the illness, but because they give the brain an opportunity to step out, even temporarily, of a continuous state of alarm.

When illness takes over every thought

The experience of cancer is not limited to treatment days. It often affects everyday life as a whole. Thoughts about tests, medical decisions, bodily changes, work, family, and the future may accompany a person from morning to night.

This constant mental vigilance is exhausting in itself.

International guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recognise that psychological distress is a common part of the cancer experience and recommend integrating psychosocial support into overall patient care. Likewise, guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) emphasise that mental health care and quality of life are essential parts of cancer management.

Holidays are not always about travelling

It is easy to believe that rest requires a trip. Yet scientific research suggests that the greatest benefit of holidays does not necessarily come from the destination itself, but from a change of pace and temporary distance from stressors.

Nawijn and colleagues (2010) found that people tend to feel greater well-being shortly before and during holidays, but that this feeling often fades relatively soon after they return.

This finding reminds us of something important: psychological renewal does not depend only on a few days of holiday each year, but also on the small moments of relief that we can create in everyday life.

For someone undergoing treatment, these moments may be even more valuable.

What does it mean to “pause” as a cancer patient?

To pause does not mean ignoring reality or neglecting one’s health. It means allowing oneself to remember, even for a little while, that life is not only about illness.

This may include:

a few quiet minutes on the balcony or in the garden,
a short walk in nature, when possible,
listening to favourite music,
reading a book,
engaging in a creative activity,
spending time with people who make us feel safe,
a few minutes of relaxation or mindful breathing, when appropriate for one’s health condition.

These moments do not change the diagnosis. But they can change the experience of the day.

The importance of quality of life

In modern oncology, quality of life is now considered a key therapeutic goal. Treating the disease is not enough; it is equally important for the person to maintain as much functionality, autonomy, emotional balance, and sense of meaning as possible.

This importance is also reflected in the value framework for cancer treatments developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). According to this framework, the value of a treatment is not determined solely by its effectiveness, but also by its toxicity, its impact on quality of life, and the personal priorities and preferences of the patient.

This highlights the importance of personalised, patient-centred care, in which the person’s everyday experience is an essential part of the therapeutic process.

Within this perspective, small moments of pause, the continuation of pleasant activities, and connection with what brings joy are not secondary aspects of life. They are meaningful elements that contribute to preserving quality of life. They are not luxuries, signs of weakness, or attempts to avoid reality. They are forms of self-care.

The same applies to family caregivers, who often experience high levels of emotional and physical burden. Taking some time for their own rest is not selfishness; it is a necessary condition for continuing to support their loved one in a meaningful way.

The value of a small pause

The experience of cancer often extends beyond the limits of the disease itself, affecting a person’s self-image, social roles, and daily life. Intense psychological distress and uncertainty can gradually allow the illness to occupy more and more space in life.

In this context, psycho-oncological education appears particularly important. Its aim is to help patients and family caregivers understand the emotional reactions that naturally accompany diagnosis and treatment, develop more effective coping strategies, and actively participate in treatment decisions.

In this way, the sense of control and self-efficacy is strengthened, while also preserving the sense that a person remains something more than their illness.

When health does not allow for travel, it is easy to feel deprived of something important. Yet perhaps the essence of a holiday lies not in the distance we travel, but in the distance we allow ourselves to take from stress.

To “pause” does not mean to stop being a patient. It means allowing oneself, even for a little while, to be something more than the illness.

Perhaps, in the end, the most meaningful holidays are not those that take us far from home, but those that allow us to rest the body, calm the mind, and turn toward ourselves with greater care.

A peaceful sunlit balcony with a chair, a book, a cup, flowers, and an olive tree, illustrating the importance of small moments of rest and self-care during cancer treatment.

By Marilia Barka
Psychology Student
Kapa3 Volunteer

New Scientific Publication with the Participation of Kapa3: Cancer Survivorship in the Post-COVID-19 Era

New scientific publication involving the Cancer Patient Guidance Center – Kapa3 highlights the significant psychological, social, and functional challenges that people living with and beyond cancer continue to face following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The article, entitled “Cancer Survivorship After COVID-19: Psychological Burden, Symptom Experience, and Social Support,” was published in the international peer-reviewed journal Medicina. It examines psychological distress, symptom experience, quality of life, and the protective role of social support among people affected by cancer.

What Did the Study Examine?

The research involved 162 adults diagnosed with cancer in Greece during the post-COVID-19 period. Participants completed validated questionnaires assessing depression, anxiety, stress, health-related quality of life, and perceived social support.

The results revealed a substantial and persistent psychological burden:

32.1% of participants reported severe or extremely severe depression.
40.1% reported severe or extremely severe anxiety.
29% reported severe or extremely severe stress.

The overall quality of life of participants was found to be moderate. Emotional and social functioning were among the most affected areas, while fatigue, insomnia, breathlessness, and financial difficulties emerged as some of the most significant challenges in everyday life.

The Close Relationship Between Mental Health and Quality of Life

One of the study’s key findings was the strong relationship between psychological distress and poorer quality of life.

Higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress were associated with:

poorer daily and functional performance;
lower perceived overall health;
greater symptom severity;
increased difficulty in emotional and social functioning.

The results demonstrate that psychological well-being cannot be separated from the physical, social, and practical experience of cancer.

Social Support as a Protective Factor

At the same time, the study underlines the important protective role of social support.

Support from family members, friends, and other significant people was associated with better overall health and functioning, lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, and reduced symptom burden.

The findings show that social connection is not simply an additional element of care. It is a meaningful component of recovery, adaptation, and quality of life throughout the cancer journey.

Cancer Survivorship Does Not End When Treatment Is Completed

The findings reinforce the need to move beyond a model of oncology care focused exclusively on treating the disease.

Cancer survivorship requires a comprehensive, person-centred approach that addresses the physical, psychological, social, functional, and financial dimensions of life with and after cancer.

Routine psychological assessment, early identification of emotional distress, timely referral to psycho-oncology services, rehabilitation, social support, and the meaningful involvement of families and caregivers should become integral parts of standard oncology care.

The study also points to the potential value of telehealth and digital support services in improving access to supportive care. At the same time, it highlights inequalities related to digital literacy, healthcare accessibility, and the ability of all patients to benefit equally from digital services.

The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that effective cancer care must be resilient, accessible, multidisciplinary, and capable of maintaining continuity even during periods of crisis.

A Calm Summer Begins with Proper Preparation Proactive Care Planning, Mental Decompression and Digital Support

Proactive Care Planning, Mental Decompression and Digital Support

Summer is a valuable opportunity for rest, renewal and quality time with the people we love. For people living with or after a cancer diagnosis, as well as for their caregivers, the possibility of enjoying a few days away from everyday life can contribute meaningfully to physical and mental well-being.

When a person’s health condition allows it, and with the agreement of the treating physician, even a short break can have a beneficial effect, enhancing quality of life and supporting the sense of returning to everyday life (Lim et al., 2022).

The quality of life of people living with or after a cancer diagnosis does not depend solely on medical treatment. Mental well-being, social support, optimism and resilience are equally important factors that facilitate adaptation to the disease and contribute to patients’ overall well-being (Ruiz-Rodríguez et al., 2022). At the same time, current guidelines underline the importance of integrated and personalised care, as well as continuous support for people living with or after cancer at every stage of their journey (Hart et al., 2024).

However, the peace of mind associated with holidays does not begin on the day of departure. It begins much earlier, through proper preparation. Practical pending issues, administrative procedures or concerns about unexpected events during the holidays can increase stress and reduce the feeling of safety. By contrast, proactive care planning allows patients to organise what is needed in advance, so that they can devote their time to rest rather than obligations.

Timely renewal of medical certificates, ensuring an adequate supply of medication for the entire period of absence, communicating with the treating physician when necessary, and keeping essential medical documents in an easily accessible format are simple but important steps of preparation. In this way, continuity of care is safeguarded, while the uncertainty that often accompanies travel is reduced.

Reliable information and timely support are key pillars of modern oncology care. When people know where they can turn and have easy access to trustworthy information, they feel safer, their autonomy is strengthened and the management of daily life becomes easier (Ruiz-Rodríguez et al., 2022; Hart et al., 2024).

In today’s world, digital tools can complement support services by facilitating access to reliable information wherever the patient may be. In this direction, Kapa3 is moving forward with the development of Myrto, the digital social navigator, designed to provide direct access to information on social rights, available services and useful guidance. In this way, it facilitates access to the organisation’s services and reliable information, contributing to better preparation before and during holidays.

For all of us at Kapa3, technology does not replace human care; it complements it. It is another means of facilitating access to trustworthy information and available services, while the Social Service and Psychological Support Service of Kapa3 remain the core pillar of holistic support for people living with cancer and their families.

Let us remember that care does not stop when holidays begin. It continues through small but meaningful acts of preparation, proper information and timely planning. Because, many times, the greatest luxury of a holiday is not the destination itself, but the feeling that we can enjoy our moments with calmness, safety and trust.

The Social Service and Psychological Support Service of Kapa3 wish everyone a safe, peaceful and refreshing summer, with health, strength and beautiful moments.

Before Leaving for Your Holidays…

✔️ Make sure you have an adequate supply of your medication for the entire period of your absence.

✔️ Check whether there are any medical certificates, prescriptions or other administrative pending issues that need to be settled in time.

✔️ Discuss with your treating physician any special instructions related to travel or movement.

✔️ Keep with you the necessary medical documents and important contact details.

✔️ Find out about available support services and make use of the Kapa3 App, so that you have easy access to useful information wherever you are.

References

Hart, N. H., Nekhlyudov, L., Smith, T. J., Yee, J., Fitch, M. I., Crawford, G. B., et al. (2024). Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations. JCO Oncology Practice, 20(9), 1160–1172. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.23.00716

Lim, J. H. C., Keenan, C., & Flaherty, G. T. (2022). All My Life to Live: Travel Health Benefits and Risks for Cancer Survivors. Journal of Travel Medicine, 29(5), taac069. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taac069

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2024). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Survivorship. Version 2.2024. Plymouth Meeting, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Ruiz-Rodríguez, I., Hombrados-Mendieta, I., Melguizo-Garín, A., & Martos-Méndez, M. J. (2022). The Importance of Social Support, Optimism and Resilience on the Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 833176. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.833176

World Health Organization. (2022). World Mental Health Report: Transforming Mental Health for All. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Official Access Links

Hart et al., 2024 — MASCC-ASCO Standards:
https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/OP.23.00716

Lim et al., 2022:
https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taac069

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Survivorship:
https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/survivorship.pdf

Ruiz-Rodríguez et al., 2022:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.833176

WHO World Mental Health Report:
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049338

Marilia Barka
Psychology Student
Kapa3 Volunteer

www.linkedin.com/in/maria-garyfalia-marilia-barka-03825a409

DISABILITY CARD OR TRANSPORTATION PASS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 2026. WHAT BENEFICIARIES NEED TO KNOW.

The new explanatory circular regarding transportation for people with disabilities (PWDs) for 2026 has raised several questions among beneficiaries and their families who are trying to understand what the current rules are. The most common question is: “I have the plastic Disability Card. Do I also need to get a PWD Transportation Pass?”

The answer is that the Disability Card has not completely replaced the Transportation Pass. Both of these documents remain valid simultaneously, and the need for one or the
other depends on the mode of transportation used by each eligible person. To make this clearer, here’s what applies in each case.

Athens and Thessaloniki: The Disability Card can be used for urban travel

For travel on OASA transit in Athens and OSETH transit in Thessaloniki, the plastic Disability Card can be used by eligible beneficiaries.

Cardholders can travel by validating their card at the designated machines, without needing to obtain a
separate Travel Pass specifically for these transit services.

The following are required:

the Disability Card must be valid,
must bear the designated disability level II or III designation,
or the beneficiary must receive disability financial assistance from OPEKA,
and income criteria must be met where required.

URBAN KTEL BUSES IN THE PROVINCE: THE TRAVEL PASS REMAINS NECESSARY

This is the point that has caused the most confusion. Possession of a Disability Card does not mean that
the Travel Pass is no longer required for all trips.

For urban KTEL buses operated by the Regional Units, as well as by the municipalities of Kos and
Rhodes, a Mobility Card for People with Disabilities is required, even if the beneficiary holds a Disability Card.

Therefore, those who use urban KTEL buses in their area should apply:
– at the Citizen Service Centers (KEP),
– or at the relevant offices of the Regional Unit.

FOR 2026, THE PROCESS BEGINS ON JULY 1, 2026, AND ENDS ON NOVEMBER 30, 2026.
Intercity Buses (KTEL): 50% Discount on Fares

For travel on intercity buses (KTEL)—that is, for trips from one city to another—a 50% discount is available.
The discount can be obtained with:
– A valid Disability Card,
– or a Transportation Pass for People with Disabilities.

Thus, for intercity routes, the beneficiary has more options.

Are there income criteria for free transportation?

One point that often causes confusion concerns income. There are no income criteria for issuing the Disability Card.

The income limits apply to eligibility for free transportation.

For 2026, the limits are as follows:
– individual taxable income up to 23,000 euros,
– declared family income up to 29,000 euros.

The family income limit increases by 5,600 euros for each additional person with a disability of 67% or higher who lives with and is financially dependent on the taxpayer.

It is important to note that: OPEKA disability benefits are not included in the above income limits. A relevant certificate from OPEKA may be required to exclude them.

Who is exempt from the income criteria?

People who are totally blind are exempt from the income criteria.

What applies to the companion?

In many cases, a companion is also entitled to travel.
If the Disability Card is marked with an “S” (Companion):

in Athens and Thessaloniki, the companion travels with the cardholder upon a single validation of the card. For KTEL buses, however, the prescribed procedure and the corresponding Companion Travel Pass are required where necessary.

So, what do beneficiaries need to keep?

The Disability Card is a significant benefit, but it does not mean that the Travel Pass is being
eliminated.
In simple terms:
Disability Card:
✔ Athens and Thessaloniki
✔ Intercity KTEL buses for a 50% discount
Travel Pass:
✔ Provincial KTEL buses
✔ Situations where a companion’s entitlement is required
✔ Those who do not have a Disability Card

At Kapa3, we believe that accurate information can save time, trips, and unnecessary hassle,
especially for people who already face increased challenges due to a disability or a serious illness.

View the circular here: TRANSPORTATION 2026
DISABILITY CIRCULAR

For more information, please don’t hesitate to contact the Kapa3 team:

📍Athens: 13 Kosti Palama, 3rd floor, (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM)
📍13 Kosti Palama, 11141 Athens
☎️210 5221424
📱6906265170
www.kapa3.gr, info@kapa3.gr