OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify and analyse published research exploring teenage and young adult experience of cancer to inform the development of a patient-reported outcome survey intended to explore if a correlation exists between specialist cancer care and quality of life for young people with cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL Plus and PsycInfo were searched for literature published between 1987 and 2011. REVIEW METHODS: Search terms included those for: population (e.g. teen, young adult); intervention (e.g. cancer); outcome (e.g. experience); and study type (e.g. qualitative). INCLUSION CRITERIA: adolescents and young adults were both represented; diagnosis of cancer; published in English; and used qualitative methods to report an aspect of the cancer experience. Studies were excluded if they were reporting: palliative care experience; secondary data; or proxy views, i.e. parent or health professional perspective. Methodological quality was assessed using Cesario criteria and meta-synthesis involved deconstruction and decontextualising findings to identify common themes. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifteen studies were identified, 17 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, most (59%), were assessed as being high quality, none were rated poor. Nine common themes were identified: psychosocial function, importance of peers, experience of healthcare, importance of support, impact of symptoms, striving for normality, impact of diagnosis, positive experiences, and financial consequences. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual model developed from the meta-synthesis depicts the mediators and consequences of cancer care that impact on young people's quality of life after a cancer diagnosis. The model highlights areas that require further exploration.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify and analyse published research exploring teenage and young adult experience of cancer to inform the development of a patient-reported outcome survey intended to explore if a correlation exists between specialist cancer care and quality of life for young people with cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL Plus and PsycInfo were searched for literature published between 1987 and 2011. REVIEW METHODS: Search terms included those for: population (e.g. teen, young adult); intervention (e.g. cancer); outcome (e.g. experience); and study type (e.g. qualitative). INCLUSION CRITERIA: adolescents and young adults were both represented; diagnosis of cancer; published in English; and used qualitative methods to report an aspect of the cancer experience. Studies were excluded if they were reporting: palliative care experience; secondary data; or proxy views, i.e. parent or health professional perspective. Methodological quality was assessed using Cesario criteria and meta-synthesis involved deconstruction and decontextualising findings to identify common themes. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifteen studies were identified, 17 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, most (59%), were assessed as being high quality, none were rated poor. Nine common themes were identified: psychosocial function, importance of peers, experience of healthcare, importance of support, impact of symptoms, striving for normality, impact of diagnosis, positive experiences, and financial consequences. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual model developed from the meta-synthesis depicts the mediators and consequences of cancer care that impact on young people's quality of life after a cancer diagnosis. The model highlights areas that require further exploration.
Authors: Matthew K Knox; Sarah Hales; Rinat Nissim; Judy Jung; Christopher Lo; Camilla Zimmermann; Gary Rodin Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Louise Moody; Andrew Turner; Jane Osmond; Louise Hooker; Joanna Kosmala-Anderson; Lynn Batehup Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Rachel M Taylor; Lorna A Fern; Julie Barber; Javier Alvarez-Galvez; Richard Feltbower; Stephen Morris; Louise Hooker; Martin G McCabe; Faith Gibson; Rosalind Raine; Dan P Stark; Jeremy S Whelan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-04-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rachel M Taylor; Lorna A Fern; Anita Solanki; Louise Hooker; Anna Carluccio; Julia Pye; David Jeans; Tom Frere-Smith; Faith Gibson; Julie Barber; Rosalind Raine; Dan Stark; Richard Feltbower; Susie Pearce; Jeremy S Whelan Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Rachel M Taylor; Richard G Feltbower; Natasha Aslam; Rosalind Raine; Jeremy S Whelan; Faith Gibson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mohammad Hossein Kaveh; Leila Moradi; Mohammad Ali Morowatisharifabad; Azadeh Najarzadeh; Hossein Fallahzadeh Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.411