Comparative Analysis of National Cancer Control Programs: Insights from Iran, USA, UK, Turkey, and Finland

Abbas  Mazinani; Majid  Mirmohammadkhani; Leila  Najafi; Israfil  Roshdi

doi:10.18502/htaa.v9i3.19644

Abbas Mazinani PhD Candidate of Health Care Management, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran.
Majid Mirmohammadkhani Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.
Leila Najafi Assistant Professor, Department of Health Care Management, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran.
Israfil Roshdi Assistant Professor, Department of Basic Sciences, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/htaa.v9i3.19644

Keywords: National Cancer Control Program (NCCP); Cancer Control; Program Evaluation; Healthcare Disparities

Abstract

Background: National cancer control programs (NCCPs) are pivotal in addressing the global burden of cancer through prevention, detection, treatment, and supportive care strategies. Comparing the effectiveness of these programs is crucial for optimizing cancer care practices worldwide.

Objectives: This study evaluates NCCPs in Iran, the USA, the UK, Turkey, and Finland to provide insights into enhancing global cancer care practices.

Methods: We compared Iran’s NCCP with those of selected countries, focusing on key components including prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, research, and registration. A systematic literature search identified relevant articles discussing NCCPs of Iran and comparison countries. Peer-reviewed journals and reputable databases were utilized for article retrieval. Inclusion criteria comprised English articles offering comprehensive information on NCCP components, while exclusion criteria involved articles not directly comparing NCCPs or lacking relevant data. Qualitative analysis of selected articles identified similarities and differences in program implementation and effectiveness. Grey literature and official government documents supplemented findings.

Results: Five studies on NCCPs from America, England, Finland, Turkey, and Iran were identified, revealing diverse approaches and shared objectives in global cancer treatment management. While comprehensive program components were similar across nations, nuanced differences emerged. More developed nations exhibited detailed strategies, while challenges such as treatment access and palliative care integration persisted elsewhere. Variations in prevention initiatives, screening methods, treatment accessibility, and research funding mechanisms underscored the complexity of global cancer control efforts.

Conclusions: This study compares NCCPs in Iran, the USA, the UK, Turkey, and Finland. While all programs share common objectives, differences in strategies and resources exist. More developed nations often have detailed plans, while challenges like treatment access persist elsewhere. Variations in prevention, screening, treatment, and research underscore the complexity of global cancer care. By understanding these nuances, policymakers can better tailor NCCPs to address diverse population needs and improve cancer care outcomes worldwide.