From access to continuity of care: when navigation becomes part of the solution

Why health systems need pathways, not just pilots

A test is not treatment. A referral does not necessarily mean that a person will reach the care they need. And a successful pilot does not, by itself, mean that a health system works for everyone.

This is the central message of a recent article by Gaurav Ghewade for the World Economic Forum, “Why healthcare systems need pathways, not just pilots.” The key question is no longer simply whether people can enter a health system, but whether the system can support them throughout the journey that follows.

In 2023, around 4.6 billion people worldwide were still not fully covered by essential health services. At the same time, chronic conditions, including cancer, require much more than a single intervention. They demand continuity, repeated contact with services, follow-up and coordinated support.

The critical question therefore becomes:

What happens after the first step?

Does a person know where to go next? Do they understand the procedures they need to follow? Are they aware of the rights and benefits available to them? Can they identify the appropriate services? Is there a clear pathway, or are they left to navigate a complex system on their own?

For people affected by cancer, the journey extends far beyond diagnosis and treatment. It can also involve administrative procedures, social and employment rights, financial and insurance benefits, access to social services, psychosocial support, caregiver needs and the return to everyday life.

This is why navigation is becoming an essential part of person-centred support.

From information to action: MYRTO

This is also the space in which MYRTO – Kapa3’s Digital Social Rights Navigator is being developed.

MYRTO does not replace doctors or healthcare professionals and does not provide treatment decisions. Its purpose is to help people affected by cancer and their caregivers access reliable and understandable information, better understand their social rights and available benefits, identify relevant services and move towards the next practical step in their journey. Kapa3 has positioned MYRTO within a broader approach to digital navigation, social accessibility and patient empowerment.

Because access is only the beginning.

What truly matters is ensuring that no one gets lost between the steps of their journey.

The development of MYRTO is supported by the TIMA Charitable Foundation, Founding Sponsor of MYRTO.

Source

Gaurav Ghewade, Why healthcare systems need pathways, not just pilots, World Economic Forum, 21 August 2026.

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

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

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.

June: Cancer Survivors Month

Survival is a victory — but care must continue

June is dedicated to people living with and beyond cancer. It is a month of recognition, hope and respect for every person who has faced a cancer diagnosis, completed treatment, continues treatment, or lives with cancer as a long-term condition.

Cancer survival is a major victory. However, for many people, it is not the end of the story. Life after cancer often brings a new reality: follow-up appointments, fear of recurrence, fatigue, emotional distress, changes in body image, work-related challenges, financial pressure, family adjustments and the need to rebuild everyday life with confidence and dignity.

Cancer Survivors Month reminds us that survivorship is not only about living longer. It is also about living better.

A cancer survivor is not only a person who has completed treatment and is disease-free. The term also includes people receiving maintenance treatment, people living with cancer as a chronic condition, and those who continue to experience the physical, emotional, social or economic consequences of the disease and its treatment.

In recent years, advances in early diagnosis, targeted therapies, immunotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and supportive care have increased the number of people living many years after a cancer diagnosis. This is a major achievement for medicine, research and public health. At the same time, it creates a new responsibility: to ensure that survivorship care is organised, person-centred and accessible to all.

For many survivors, the end of active treatment is a moment of relief and gratitude. Yet it may also bring uncertainty. Some people feel that everyone around them expects them to “go back to normal”, while they are still trying to understand what has changed in their body, their emotions, their relationships and their daily life.

The fear of recurrence, anxiety before follow-up tests, persistent fatigue, pain, cognitive difficulties, changes in sexuality, emotional vulnerability and social isolation are real experiences for many people after cancer. These needs should not be underestimated. Survivors need space to speak, reliable information, access to professional support when needed, and connection with communities and organisations that understand their journey.

Long-term follow-up is also essential. Survivorship care should not focus only on recurrence. It should also include prevention, early recognition of late effects, management of treatment-related complications, support for mental health, healthy lifestyle guidance and personalised monitoring according to each person’s cancer type, treatment history, age and individual risk factors.

The message is not fear. The message is awareness, prevention and continuity of care.

Life after cancer is also about rights. It is about returning to work, accessing social benefits, understanding available services, managing financial toxicity, supporting caregivers, protecting dignity and ensuring equal access to care. Survivorship must be seen as a social, psychological and practical issue — not only a medical one.

At Kapa3, we see every day that cancer does not always end with the last treatment. It continues in the questions people ask about their rights, their next steps, their follow-up, their access to benefits, psychological support, work, family life and social reintegration.

This is why people living with and beyond cancer need holistic support. They need information, guidance, psychosocial care, access to rights and services, empowerment and continuity of care. No one should feel alone after treatment. No one should be left to navigate bureaucracy, uncertainty or lack of information without support.

Cancer Survivors Month invites us to change the way we talk about survival. We should not ask only: “Did the person survive cancer?” We should also ask:

Are they living with quality of life?
Do they have access to the care they need?
Do they know their rights?
Do they receive psychological and social support?
Can they return to work and daily life with dignity?
Is there a follow-up plan?
Is there someone to guide them when they do not know where to turn?

Cancer survival is a victory. But the real challenge is to turn this victory into a life with quality, safety, rights, support and hope.

At Kapa3, we continue to stand beside every person living with and beyond cancer. Through information, guidance, empowerment and human-centred support, we believe that care does not stop at treatment.

It continues in life.

Participation in CA21152 – Implementation Network Europe for Cancer Survivorship Care

Digital Health and Cancer Survivorship: Kapa3 at the INE-CSC 2026 Conference in Coimbra

The Cancer Guidance Center – Kapa3 participated in the INE-CSC 2026 Conference, part of CA21152 – Implementation Network Europe for Cancer Survivorship Care (INE-CSC), held on 25–26 May 2026 at the Faculty of Medicine (Polo III), University of Coimbra, in Coimbra, Portugal.

The conference was held under the theme “The Next Chapter – Empowering Individuals, Families, and Society for Cancer Survivorship & Supportive Care”, highlighting the need for new approaches to cancer survivorship, supportive care and the translation of innovation into real-world impact for people living with and beyond cancer, their families and society.

Kapa3’s presence in Coimbra represents another important step in its European engagement and in its ongoing effort to connect everyday experience in supporting cancer patients in Greece with European knowledge, research, digital innovation and health policy.

A key highlight was the participation in a round table discussion on facilitators and barriers to the implementation of digital health tools in oncology. The discussion was co-organised by Aristea Kyriaki Ladas and Christos Frantzidis and brought together voices from different European countries and organisations, including representatives from Kapa3, Acreditar Portugal, Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro, ORCO / Madrid Regional Ministry of Health, as well as participants from Poland, Latvia and the United Kingdom.

Among the participants in the round table were Yannis Kontogiorgis and Despoina Pistiolis from Kapa3, Greece, contributing to the European dialogue on digital health, oncology navigation and the participatory development of solutions that respond to the real needs of patients and caregivers.

One of the key messages of the discussion was that digital innovation in oncology is not only a technological challenge. It is also a matter of policy, implementation, equity, trust and accessibility.

For digital tools to make a meaningful difference in cancer care and survivorship, they cannot remain isolated applications or pilot projects. They need to become part of real care pathways, be supported by appropriate policy environments, connect with interdisciplinary practice and be evaluated in terms of effectiveness, implementation readiness, accessibility, equity, sustainability and value.

The discussion also highlighted that digital tools must be designed around the real needs of patients and survivors, not only around technical possibilities. Accessibility across countries, languages, healthcare systems and levels of digital and health literacy must be built in from the beginning.

The role of patient organisations and cancer support communities was also identified as essential. These organisations can act as a bridge between technological innovation and the everyday reality of people affected by cancer. They understand the questions, barriers, fears and needs that are often not fully captured by formal care systems.

For Kapa3, this participation is directly linked to the development of Myrto, its digital health and rights navigator, designed as a tool for empowerment, guidance and support for cancer patients and their caregivers.

Myrto is not approached as a simple information tool. It is being designed as a participatory intervention built around the real needs of people with lived experience of cancer. It is connected to access to rights, social benefits, services, practical guidance and human escalation whenever needed.

The Coimbra experience strengthened the view that digital health must be human-centred, accessible, trustworthy and integrated into a broader ecosystem of care. Technology can meaningfully support cancer care only when it is designed with participation, trust, clear purpose and an equity-oriented approach.

Cancer survivorship is not only about completing treatment. It is about quality of life, mental health, social reintegration, work, family, everyday life, access to services and the feeling that no person is left alone after diagnosis or treatment.

Through its participation in European networks such as INE-CSC, Kapa3 continues to contribute to the dialogue on more equitable, participatory and person-centred cancer care. Care that uses technology without losing sight of the human being at its centre.

The future of cancer support will not depend only on better digital tools, but on better collaboration between patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals, researchers, technology partners, patient organisations and policymakers.

For Kapa3, this is at the heart of its mission: transforming knowledge into action, technology into support, and the voice of patients into services that respond to their real needs.

More information: INE-CSC – Implementation Network Europe for Cancer Survivorship Care.More information:
https://inecancersurvivorship.com

Person-centred cancer care: a new global report for more sustainable health systems

Cancer continues to place a growing burden on individuals, health systems, and society, making it essential to strengthen person-centred cancer care and rethink how care is delivered. New cancer diagnoses are expected to rise by nearly 77% by 2050, further straining already pressured healthcare systems.

Many countries report limited access to treatments, workforce shortages, and long waiting times as key challenges. In this context, policymakers must rethink how cancer care is delivered, ensuring that limited resources are used effectively while maintaining access to high-quality services.

The report titled “Implementing Person-Centred Cancer Care to Improve Outcomes, Experiences and Efficiency”, published by All.Can International, is based on evidence and studies from 2018–2025. It brings together insights from experts across 11 countries and aims to support policymakers and health systems in redesigning cancer care towards a more person-centred and efficient model.

The report highlights that person-centred cancer care is a practical, high-impact approach that improves patient experience while strengthening the resilience of health systems. It places individuals at the centre of care, taking into account their needs, values, and goals, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all clinical pathway.

The framework is structured around seven key areas of intervention, with a common goal: better care for patients and more sustainable health systems.

1. Early diagnosis and timely initiation of treatment

Late diagnosis remains a major global challenge. Limited health literacy, low participation in screening programmes, and weaknesses in primary care often lead to delays in treatment.

The report recommends more tailored public information, taking into account health literacy levels and cultural context. It also emphasises the co-design of screening programmes with communities to improve participation and enable earlier diagnosis.

2. Coordinated and multidisciplinary care

Lack of coordination between services leads to delays and unequal care provision. Strengthening multidisciplinary teams and introducing patient navigation can help individuals move more smoothly through the healthcare system and receive more consistent care.

3. Digital tools and system integration

Fragmented data management and limited interoperability between health systems remain major barriers. Developing integrated data infrastructures, national cancer registries, and using technologies such as artificial intelligence can improve efficiency and coordination.

4. Telemedicine and remote care

At the same time, digital health services can reduce geographical barriers and bring care closer to patients. However, investment in infrastructure and training is necessary to ensure equitable access.

The use of wearable health technologies and mobile applications can support continuous monitoring and care beyond hospital settings.

5. Communication and shared decision-making

Effective communication between healthcare professionals and patients remains a critical challenge. Shared decision-making models, the use of patient experience data, and culturally appropriate communication can strengthen trust and improve care quality.

At the same time, involving caregivers in communication processes is essential, as their needs are often overlooked.

6. Supportive care and survivorship

Access to psychosocial and supportive care remains limited in many settings, negatively affecting quality of life. Integrating support services throughout the care pathway is essential, especially as more people live with and beyond cancer.

The report also highlights the importance of advance care planning, which can reduce unnecessary hospitalisations and support patient autonomy.

7. Financial support and access to care

The financial burden of cancer remains a major barrier to accessing care. The report recommends improved reimbursement systems, financial navigation services, and support for indirect costs to reduce financial toxicity for patients and their families.

Person-centred cancer care in Greece

Although the report has a global scope, its findings are highly relevant for countries like Greece. Challenges such as delays in diagnosis, inequalities in access, workforce pressure, and limited system integration reflect real issues within the Greek healthcare system.

In this context, the transition towards more coordinated, digitally supported, and person-centred cancer care becomes particularly important.

Call to action

Therefore, policymakers must urgently embed person-centred care into national cancer strategies. Collaboration with people with lived experience of cancer is essential to designing more equitable, efficient, and sustainable health systems.

Adopting this approach can contribute to earlier diagnosis, improved quality of care, better use of resources, and ultimately more resilient health systems in the face of rising cancer burden.

You can read the full report here: Person-centred-cancer-care-improving-outcomes-experiences-and-efficiency-2

Text/Adaptation: Ifiyenia Anastasiou for Kapa3