PURPOSE: A rapid and comprehensive review to identify what is known and not known about the physical and practical problems faced by adult cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic literature review process was used. This focused on published reviews to enable a fast but rigorous identification of both the gaps and well-researched areas within survivorship. RESULTS: The search identified 5121 reviews, of which 42 were screened and 9 met the quality and inclusion criteria. The majority of papers focused on physical well being (n = 6) with the remaining papers focusing on practical well being (employment and finance). The quality of the reviews varied (ranging from weak to good). Gaps identified include sexual function, lower-limb lymphoedema, peripheral neuropathy, bladder and GI problems, hormonal sequelae, older cancer survivors, work impact of cancer and context-specific unmet supportive care needs. The review found a lack of standardised nomenclature for survivorship and methodological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Four main gaps in knowledge relating to the practical and physical problems associated with cancer survivorship have been identified. These are key symptoms, unmet supportive care needs, employment and older cancer survivors, and should be addressed by future research and systematic literature reviews. Work is also needed to address the nomenclature of survivorship and to improve the methodology of research into cancer survivors (including standardised measures, theoretical frameworks, longitudinal design, inclusion of older survivors and age-matched controls for comparison). The review highlighted the need for better research within the identified areas in order to improve the experiences of cancer survivors.
PURPOSE: A rapid and comprehensive review to identify what is known and not known about the physical and practical problems faced by adult cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic literature review process was used. This focused on published reviews to enable a fast but rigorous identification of both the gaps and well-researched areas within survivorship. RESULTS: The search identified 5121 reviews, of which 42 were screened and 9 met the quality and inclusion criteria. The majority of papers focused on physical well being (n = 6) with the remaining papers focusing on practical well being (employment and finance). The quality of the reviews varied (ranging from weak to good). Gaps identified include sexual function, lower-limb lymphoedema, peripheral neuropathy, bladder and GI problems, hormonal sequelae, older cancer survivors, work impact of cancer and context-specific unmet supportive care needs. The review found a lack of standardised nomenclature for survivorship and methodological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Four main gaps in knowledge relating to the practical and physical problems associated with cancer survivorship have been identified. These are key symptoms, unmet supportive care needs, employment and older cancer survivors, and should be addressed by future research and systematic literature reviews. Work is also needed to address the nomenclature of survivorship and to improve the methodology of research into cancer survivors (including standardised measures, theoretical frameworks, longitudinal design, inclusion of older survivors and age-matched controls for comparison). The review highlighted the need for better research within the identified areas in order to improve the experiences of cancer survivors.
Authors: Richard Baird; Ian Banks; David Cameron; John Chester; Helena Earl; Mark Flannagan; Adam Januszewski; Richard Kennedy; Sarah Payne; Emlyn Samuel; Hannah Taylor; Roshan Agarwal; Samreen Ahmed; Caroline Archer; Ruth Board; Judith Carser; Ellen Copson; David Cunningham; Rob Coleman; Adam Dangoor; Graham Dark; Diana Eccles; Chris Gallagher; Adam Glaser; Richard Griffiths; Geoff Hall; Marcia Hall; Danielle Harari; Michael Hawkins; Mark Hill; Peter Johnson; Alison Jones; Tania Kalsi; Eleni Karapanagiotou; Zoe Kemp; Janine Mansi; Ernie Marshall; Alex Mitchell; Maung Moe; Caroline Michie; Richard Neal; Tom Newsom-Davis; Alison Norton; Richard Osborne; Gargi Patel; John Radford; Alistair Ring; Emily Shaw; Rod Skinner; Dan Stark; Sam Turnbull; Galina Velikova; Jeff White; Alison Young; Johnathan Joffe; Peter Selby Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2016-01-05
Authors: Clare C O'Callaghan; Fiona McDermott; Natasha Michael; Barbara A Daveson; Peter L Hudson; John R Zalcberg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Nadine Ungar; Laura Schmidt; Martina Gabrian; Alexander Haussmann; Angeliki Tsiouris; Monika Sieverding; Karen Steindorf; Joachim Wiskemann Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2018-10-23