Course Project: Developing a Strategic Plan
Tools for Strategic Planning—Balanced Scorecard and Other Tools
Effective leader-managers seek to understand how a proposed strategic change may affect performance and follow up with sound analysis to evaluate progress throughout implementation and assess the costs and benefits.
This week, you examine the use of performance metrics to gauge an organization’s standing and the impact of changes on finances, customer/client satisfaction, internal business processes, and learning and growth within a group, unit, or organization. For your Course Project, you begin to develop a balanced scorecard to measure performance related to your proposed change.
Section 3: Balanced Scorecard
Managers, like pilots, need instrumentation about many aspects of their environment and performance to monitor the journey toward excellent future outcomes.—Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action
To prepare:
As introduced in Week 8,continue to refine your balanced scorecard. (Refer to Week 8 for the preparatory instructions as necessary.) Your balanced scorecard is one tool you can use to evaluate the effects of your planned change on performance.
To complete:
Section 3: Balanced Scorecard
As you continue to develop your Course Project, it is important to consider how to evaluate the effects of your planned change on performance. Based on the work you have done thus far on your Course Project, this week you create a balanced scorecard.
To prepare:
Learning Resources
Learning Resources
•
Required Readings
Sare, M. V., & Ogilvie, L. (2010). Strategic planning for nurses: Change management in health
care. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Chapter 8, “Overview of Strategic Planning Theories: Strategic Planning Architecture” (pp.
147–166)
Fields, S. A., & Cohen, D. (2011). Performance enhancement using a balanced scorecard in a
patient-centered medical home. Family Medicine, 43(10), 735–739.
Copyright 2011 by Society of Teachers of Family Medicine. Reprinted by permission
of Society of Teachers of Family Medicine via the Copyright Clearance Center.
The authors discuss using a balanced scorecard for quality improvement in patientcentered medical homes.
Groene, O., Brandt, E., Schmidt, W., & Moeller, J. (Aug 2009). The balanced scorecard of
acute settings: Development process, definition of 20 strategic objectives and
implementation.International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 21(4), 259–271.
Copyright 2009 by Oxford University Press – Journals. Reprinted by permission of Oxford
University Press – Journals via the Copyright Clearance Center.
In this article, the authors discuss the use of a balanced scorecard as a tool for strategic
planning in hospitals. The article includes an example of a strategy map, timeline, and
balanced scorecard.
Jeffs, L., Merkley, J., Richardson, S., Eli, J., & McAllister, M. (2011). Using a nursing balanced
scorecard approach to measure and optimize nursing performance. Nursing Leadership,
24(1), 47–58.
Copyright 2011 by Longwoods Publishing Corporation. Reprinted by permission
of Longwoods Publishing Corporation via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Kollberg, B., & Elg, M. (2011). The practice of the balanced scorecard in health care services.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(5), 427–445.
The authors look at the use of a balanced scorecard for health care performance
management in Sweden.
Lupi, S., Verzola, A., Carandina, G., Salani, M., Antonioli, P., & Gregorio, P. (2011).
Multidimensional evaluation of performance with experimental application of balanced
scorecard: A two year experience. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9(1), 7.
This article examines the application of a balanced scorecard within a unit in a
hospital to compare performance results and goal achievement.
Balanced Scorecard Institute. (2013). Balanced scorecard basics. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabi
d/55/Default.aspx
View the information on this website to learn about balanced scorecards.
Mountain State Group. (n.d.) Balanced scorecards for small rural hospitals: Concept overview
and implementation guidance. Retrieved March 13, 2013,
fromhttp://www.ruralcenter.org/sites/default/files/Final%20BSC%20Manual%2010.18F.
pdf
The Scarborough Hospital. (2013). Balanced scorecard. Retrieved from
http://tsh.to/pages/Balanced-Score-Card
This website provides an example of a balanced scorecard.
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. (2013). Balanced scorecard. Retrieved
fromhttp://sunnybrook.ca/scorecard/index.asp#sr
This website provides an example of a balanced scorecard.
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2013a). The balanced scorecard approach [Video
file]. Retrieved from the https://class.waldenu.edu
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 3 minutes.
Dr. Carol Huston discusses the elements and use of a balanced scorecard as a strategic
planning evaluation tool.
Accessible player
Credit: Provided courtesy of the Laureate International Network of Universities.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6241_Week_9_Assignment_1_Rubric
Exit
Grid View
List View
Excellent
Points:
Points Range:
27 (27%) – 30
(30%)
Quality of Work
Submitted:
The extent of
which work
meets the
assigned criteria
and work
reflects
graduate level
critical and
analytic
thinking.
%7B%220.27000
Fair
Poor
Points:
Points Range:
24 (24%) – 26
(26%)
%7B%220.24000
Points:
Points:
Points Range:
21 (21%) – 23
(23%)
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 20
(20%)
%7B%220.00000
%7B%220.21000
Assignment
exceeds
expectations.
All topics are
addressed with
a minimum of
75% containing
exceptional
breadth and
depth about
each of the
assignment
topics.
Feedback:
Quality of Work
Submitted:
Good
Points:
Assignment
meets
expectations.
All topics are
addressed with
a minimum of
50% containing
good breadth
and depth
about each of
the assignment
topics.
Assignment
meets most of
the
expectations.
One required
topic is either
not addressed
or inadequately
addressed.
Feedback:
Feedback:
Feedback:
Points:
Assignment
superficially
meets some of
the
expectations.
Two or more
required topics
are either not
addressed or
inadequately
addressed.
Points:
Points:
Excellent
The purpose of
the paper is
clear.
Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
%7B%220.05000
Good
Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Fair
Poor
Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5
(3.5%)
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
%7B%220.00000
%7B%220.04000
%7B%220.03500
A clear and
comprehensive
purpose
statement is
provided
which
delineates all
required
criteria.
Purpose of the
assignment is
stated, yet is
brief and not
descriptive.
Purpose of the
assignment is
vague or off
topic.
Feedback:
Feedback:
No purpose
statement was
provided.
Feedback:
Feedback:
Points:
Assimilation and
Synthesis of
Ideas:
The extend to
which the work
reflects the
student’s ability
to:
Understand and
interpret the
assignment’s
key concepts.
Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10
(10%)
%7B%220.09000
Demonstrates
the ability to
critically
appraise and
intellectually
explore key
concepts.
Points:
Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
%7B%220.08000
Demonstrates
a clear
understanding
of key
concepts.
Feedback:
Points:
Points:
Points Range: 7
(7%) – 7 (7%)
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
%7B%220.00000
%7B%220.07000
Shows some
degree of
understanding
of key concepts.
Feedback:
Shows a lack of
understanding
of key
concepts,
deviates from
topics.
Feedback:
Feedback:
Assimilation and
Synthesis of
Ideas:
The extend to
which the work
Points:
Points:
Points:
Points:
Points Range:
18 (18%) – 20
(20%)
Points Range:
16 (16%) – 17
(17%)
Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15
(15%)
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 13
(13%)
Excellent
reflects the
student’s ability
to:
Apply and
integrate
material in
course
resources (i.e.
video, required
readings, and
textbook) and
credible outside
resources.
%7B%220.18000
Demonstrates
and applies
exceptional
support of
major points
and integrates
2 or more
credible
outside
sources, in
addition to 2-3
course
resources to
suppport point
of view.
Good
%7B%220.16000
Integrates
specific
information
from 1 credible
outside
resource and
2-3 course
resources to
support major
points and
point of view.
Fair
Poor
%7B%220.14000
Minimally
includes and
integrates
specific
information
from 2-3
resources to
support major
points and
point of view.
%7B%220.00000
Includes and
integrates
specific
information
from 0 to 1
resoruce to
support major
points and
point of view.
Feedback:
Feedback:
Feedback:
Feedback:
Assimilation and
Synthesis of
Ideas:
The extend to
which the work
reflects the
student’s ability
to:
Synthesize
(combines
various
components or
different ideas
into a new
whole) material
in course
resources (i.e.
video, required
readings,
Points:
Points:
Points Range:
18 (18%) – 20
(20%)
Points:
Points Range:
16 (16%) – 17
(17%)
Points Range:
14 (14%) – 15
(15%)
%7B%220.14000
%7B%220.18000
%7B%220.16000
Synthesizes
and justifies
(defends,
explains,
validates,
confirms)
information
gleaned from
sources to
support major
points
presented.
Summarizes
information
gleaned from
sources to
support major
points, but
does not
synthesize.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 13
(13%)
%7B%220.00000
Identifies but
does not
interpret or
apply concepts,
and/or
strategies
correctly; ideas
unclear and/or
underdevelope
d.
Feedback:
Rarely or does
not interpret,
apply, and
synthesize
concepts,
and/or
strategies.
Feedback:
Excellent
textbook) and
outside,
credible
resources by
comparing
different points
of view and
highlighting
similarities,
differences, and
connections.
Good
Fair
Poor
Applies
meaning to the
field of
advanced
nursing
practice.
Feedback:
Written
Expression and
Formatting
Paragraph and
Sentence
Structure:
Paragraphs
make clear
points that
support well
developed
ideas, flow
logically, and
demonstrate
continuity of
ideas.
Sentences are
clearly
structured and
carefully
focused-neither long and
rambling nor
short and
lacking
substance.
Points:
Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
%7B%220.05000
Paragraphs
and sentences
follow writing
standards for
structure, flow,
continuity and
clarity
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
%7B%220.04000
Paragraphs
and sentences
follow writing
standards for
structure, flow,
continuity and
clarity 80% of
the time.
Feedback:
Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5
(3.5%)
%7B%220.03500
Paragraphs and
sentences
follow writing
standards for
structure, flow,
continuity and
clarity 60%79% of the
time.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
%7B%220.00000
Paragraphs
and sentences
follow writing
standards for
structure, flow,
continuity and
clarity < 60% of
the time.
Feedback:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Points:
Written
Expression and
Formatting
Points:
Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Points Range:
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
%7B%220.05000
English writing
standards:
Correct
grammar,
mechanics, and
proper
punctuation
%7B%220.04000
Uses correct
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
with no errors.
Contains a few
(1-2) grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
errors.
Feedback:
Feedback:
Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5
(3.5%)
The paper
follows correct
APA format for
title page,
headings, font,
spacing, margin
s, indentations,
page numbers,
running head,
parenthetical/in
-text citations,
and reference
list.
Show Descriptions
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
%7B%220.00000
%7B%220.03500
Contains
several (3-4)
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
errors.
Feedback:
Written
Expression and
Formatting
Points:
Contains many
(≥ 5) grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
errors that
interfere with
the reader’s
understanding.
Feedback:
Points:
Points:
Points:
Points Range:
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Points Range:
4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
%7B%220.05000
%7B%220.04000
Uses correct
APA format
with no errors.
Contains a few
(1-2) APA
format errors.
Feedback:
Feedback:
Points Range:
3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5
(3.5%)
%7B%220.03500
Contains
several (3-4)
APA format
errors.
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
%7B%220.00000
Contains many
(≥ 5) APA
format errors.
Feedback:
Feedback:
Show Feedback
Quality of Work Submitted:
The extent of which work meets the assigned criteria and work reflects graduate level critical and
analytic thinking.--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 27 (27%) - 30 (30%)
%7B%220.27000
Assignment exceeds expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 75% containing
exceptional breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics.
Good 24 (24%) - 26 (26%)
%7B%220.24000
Assignment meets expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 50% containing good
breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics.
%7B%220.21000
Fair 21 (21%) - 23 (23%)
Assignment meets most of the expectations. One required topic is either not addressed or inadequately
addressed.
%7B%220.00000
Poor 0 (0%) - 20 (20%)
Assignment superficially meets some of the expectations. Two or more required topics are either not
addressed or inadequately addressed.
Feedback:
Quality of Work Submitted:
The purpose of the paper is clear.-Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
%7B%220.05000
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement is provided which delineates all required criteria.
Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
%7B%220.04000
Purpose of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.
Fair 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
%7B%220.03500
Purpose of the assignment is vague or off topic.
Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
%7B%220.00000
No purpose statement was provided.
Feedback:
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas:
The extend to which the work reflects the student's ability to:
Understand and interpret the assignment's key concepts.-Levels of Achievement:
%7B%220.09000
Excellent 9 (9%) - 10 (10%)
Demonstrates the ability to critically appraise and intellectually explore key concepts.
%7B%220.08000
Good 8 (8%) - 8 (8%)
Demonstrates a clear understanding of key concepts.
Fair 7 (7%) - 7 (7%)
%7B%220.07000
Shows some degree of understanding of key concepts.
Poor 0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
%7B%220.00000
Shows a lack of understanding of key concepts, deviates from topics.
Feedback:
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas:
The extend to which the work reflects the student's ability to:
Apply and integrate material in course resources (i.e. video, required readings, and textbook) and
credible outside resources.-Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 18 (18%) - 20 (20%)
%7B%220.18000
Demonstrates and applies exceptional support of major points and integrates 2 or more credible outside
sources, in addition to 2-3 course resources to suppport point of view.
Good 16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
%7B%220.16000
Integrates specific information from 1 credible outside resource and 2-3 course resources to support
major points and point of view.
Fair 14 (14%) - 15 (15%)
%7B%220.14000
Minimally includes and integrates specific information from 2-3 resources to support major points and
point of view.
Poor 0 (0%) - 13 (13%)
%7B%220.00000
Includes and integrates specific information from 0 to 1 resoruce to support major points and point of
view.
Feedback:
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas:
The extend to which the work reflects the student's ability to:
Synthesize (combines various components or different ideas into a new whole) material in course
resources (i.e. video, required readings, textbook) and outside, credible resources by comparing
different points of view and highlighting similarities, differences, and connections.-Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 18 (18%) - 20 (20%)
%7B%220.18000
Synthesizes and justifies (defends, explains, validates, confirms) information gleaned from sources to
support major points presented. Applies meaning to the field of advanced nursing practice.
Good 16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
%7B%220.16000
Summarizes information gleaned from sources to support major points, but does not synthesize.
Fair 14 (14%) - 15 (15%)
%7B%220.14000
Identifies but does not interpret or apply concepts, and/or strategies correctly; ideas unclear and/or
underdeveloped.
%7B%220.00000
Poor 0 (0%) - 13 (13%)
Rarely or does not interpret, apply, and synthesize concepts, and/or strategies.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting
Paragraph and Sentence Structure: Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas,
flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and carefully
focused--neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.-Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
%7B%220.05000
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity
Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
%7B%220.04000
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity 80% of the
time.
Fair 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
%7B%220.03500
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity 60%- 79%
of the time.
Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
%7B%220.00000
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity < 60% of
the time.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting
English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation-Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
%7B%220.05000
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
%7B%220.04000
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Fair 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
%7B%220.03500
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
%7B%220.00000
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s
understanding.
Feedback:
Written Expression and Formatting
The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page
numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.-Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
%7B%220.05000
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
Good 4 (4%) - 4 (4%)
%7B%220.04000
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.
Fair 3.5 (3.5%) - 3.5 (3.5%)
%7B%220.03500
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.
Poor 0 (0%) - 3 (3%)
%7B%220.00000
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Feedback:
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6241_Week_9_Assignment_1_Rubric
Exit
Running head: IDENTIFYING RESOURCES
1
Identifying Resources
Name
Tutor
Institution
Course
Date
IDENTIFYING RESOURCES
2
My strategic plan that aims at addressing the needs of cancer caregivers will be supported
by three resources: financial resources, personnel, and time. Personnel such as stakeholders will
be involved in raising money to fund this program. Without finances, this program will not be
successful because many requirements will be purchased. New hospital personnel will be hired to
provide care for the caregivers. Their role will be to offer therapeutic services for the caregivers
and help them to manage strains that arises while at work or even in personal life. The personnel
will require salaries and benefits just like other employees of the hospital; therefore, financial
resources will be required. The personnel will require new offices, desks, uniforms, office utilities,
etc., which will all require to be purchased.
Resources that will be useful for providing treatment to caregivers will also be sourced.
The caregivers will be using a variety of treatments, both therapeutic and nontherapeutic. Time
will also be invested in this plan because specialized personnel have to be recruited and trained to
meet the needs of the caregivers. Caregiver groups will also require time to create and manage
effectively. These caregiver groups will be resourceful because individuals can share success
stories and empower others. Caregivers will be provided with affordable care services to help them
curb psychological stress (Wang et al., 2018).
The three resources, personnel, time and financial resources will be leveraged to
accomplish the strategic plan. Financial resources are beneficial for funding the program; to
purchase all the resources needed. Personnel will implement the strategic plans to accomplish the
strategic goals. Investing time will be beneficial to ensure that strategies are well planned and
implemented (Lennick et al., 2018)
IDENTIFYING RESOURCES
3
References
Lennick, D., Geer, R., & Goulart, R. (2018). Leveraging your financial intelligence: At the
intersection of money, health, and happiness
Wang, T., Molassiotis, A., Chung, B. P. M., & Tan, J. Y. (2018). Unmet care needs of advanced
cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a systematic review. Retrieved from: BMC
palliative care, 17(1), 96.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Strategic Plan
Courtney Pribonic
Walden University
4/17/2020
STRATEGIC PLAN
2
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
a) There is a wide pool of experts e.g. psychologists who can render their services in support
of cancer caregivers
b) The National Cancer of Institute is willing to support cancer caregivers
Weakness
a) Lack of active education content to assist caregivers overcome psychological strain
b) Cancer treatment is heavily inclined to patients and largely ignores caregivers
c) There is limited research so far on the psychological and emotional strain of cancer
caregivers with focus mainly being on patients
Opportunities
a) There is a wide range of treatment options to handle psychological strain
b) Caregiver groups where individuals can share success stories and empower others
c) Many cancer stakeholders who are available to support e.g. in terms of fundraising for
caregivers cause
Threats
a) Lack of unified education policies relating to cancer patients caregivers
b) The cost of accessing healthcare by cancer caregivers
c) A wide range of factors may result to psychological and emotional strain of caregivers
making it difficult for experts to treat
STRATEGIC PLAN
3
Unmet Needs of Cancer Caregivers
Unmet needs are perhaps most rampant when handling terminal diseases and, in particular,
cancer. According to the World Health Organization, cancer is one of the leading causes of death
worldwide, with the terminal illness claiming up to 9.6 million in 2018 (World Health
Organization, 2018). Despite the high number of casualties claimed by the disease, the most
intriguing bit about the illness is the physical and psychological impacts that it has not only on the
patient but on family members. It is along these lines that cancer records the highest number of
unmet needs compared to other diseases. An unmet needs list published by the Belgian Institute
for Health and Disability Insurance in 2018 was dominated by cancer ailments that comprised
54.7% of the 64 diseases that were reviewed (Anticancer Fund, 2018).
One of the most significant unmet needs related to cancer patients relates to caregivers in
hospices and other clinical settings that give care to these patients. Most of the focus is usually
given to patients, but mostly, the caregivers go through a lot of physical, psychological, and
emotional stress in their line of duty. Caregivers, especially those of advanced cancer patients,
may find it difficult taking in the suffering of the patients and have been referred in many
quarters to be fellow sufferers alongside the terminally ill patients. Informal caregivers are worst
affected, and some of the challenges are summarized below.
STRATEGIC PLAN
4
Requested help in endof-life decisions
25%
Requested for help to
manage physical and
emotional stress
27%
High emotional
stress
Financial strain
Chart 1: Issues arising from cancer caregivers. Source: National Cancer Institute (2020)
What has Been Attempted in the Past
Previously, focus on the wellbeing of caregivers was not given adequate importance in
hindsight of the immense psychological pressure they experience when working. The neglect of
the emotional health of the caregivers is what perhaps has resulted in the main challenges such as
financial strain, physical and emotional stress faced by this group of persons (Wang et al., 2018).
The strategic plan reinforces the need to evaluate the psychological wellbeing of caregivers in
tandem with cancer patients, and to support them amicably as this is the only way that they will be
able to provide adequate care to the patients.
Stakeholder to be Included in the Strategic Planning Process
Key stakeholders that should be involved include psychologists, especially those who have
related to cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute, families of the caregivers, cancer lobby
STRATEGIC PLAN
5
groups, caregiver associations, and welfare groups. These are the people who are most concerned
about the entire process of cancer treatment and hence are most likely to understand the plight of
caregivers who play a frontline role in caring for cancer patients.
The Initial Vision for Addressing the Need
An essential goal of the strategy is to ensure that caregivers can easily and freely seek
emotional and psychological support or treatment should the need to arise. Many caregivers may
have a challenge sharing out their feelings with their colleagues or specialists e.g., for fear of being
viewed as a weak person or only due to self-denial. A critical success measure of the strategic plan,
therefore, relates to how easy it is for caregivers to seek out help from psychologists and other
experts for their emotional and psychological wellbeing.
Broader Issues to Analyze
Broader issues to be considered include how the psychological strain arising from the care
of cancer patients will be differentiated from other sources of stress e.g., the case of a caregiver
who is in a troublesome marriage. Another vital aspect to be analyzed relates to the cost of
providing psychological support to caregivers and who is responsible for its provision.
STRATEGIC PLAN
6
References
Anticancer Fund. (2018). Addressing unmet needs. Retrieved from:
https://www.anticancerfund.org/en/addressing-unmet-needs
National Cancer Institute. (2020). Informal Caregivers in Cancer: Roles, Burden, and Support.
NIH. Retrieved from: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/familyfriends/family-caregivers-hp-pdq
Wang, T., Molassiotis, A., Chung, B. P. M., & Tan, J. Y. (2018). Unmet care needs of advanced
cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a systematic review. Retrieved from: BMC
palliative care, 17(1), 96.
World Health Organization. (2018). Cancer. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/newsroom/fact-sheets/detail/cancer