A meta-review of qualitative research on adult cancer survivors: current strengths and evidence gaps
The number of qualitative studies exploring cancer survivor experiences has significantly increased in recent years, with a large number of systematic reviews now published. This meta-review (systematic review of systematic reviews) aimed to assess the evidence base—summarising existing qualitative findings and identifying gaps for further research.
Systematic reviews published from 1950 to 2018 were identified via database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO). Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data. Review quality was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews.
A total of 1465 titles were retrieved, and 60 reviews were included in the final review. All included reviews were conducted between 1998 and 2018. Whilst many reviews included mixed cancer types (21), the majority included only one cancer type (breast (19), gynaecological (10), prostate (5), haematological (2), colorectal (1), bladder (1) and melanoma (1)). Reviews focused on several survivorship topic areas including quality of life, experiences of survivors from ethnic minorities, returning to work and experiences of survivorship healthcare services. Less frequently reviewed topics included fertility, body image, coping strategies and spirituality.
This meta-review provides insight into the areas of research density and paucity. Breast and gynaecological cancer survivors are strongly represented. Gaps in synthesis include reviews for other common cancers (e.g. lung, colorectal, melanoma, haematological) as well as survivorship topic areas such as side/late effects, psychological issues, financial toxicity and health behaviours.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
Qualitative research into cancer survivor experiences can guide intervention development, as well as provide survivors with insight into the experiences and challenges faced by others with cancer.
KeywordsMeta-review Systematic review Qualitative Cancer survivors
We gratefully acknowledge the input provided by consumer representatives John Stubbs and Louise Bailey.
This study was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant (APP1139539).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- 1.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia 2017. In: AIHW, editor. Canberra. 2017.Google Scholar
- 3.Koczwara B, editor. Cancer survivorship-lessons from around the globe. Cancer Forum; 2015: The Cancer Council Australia.Google Scholar
- 4.Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB, Simard EP, Boscoe FP, Henley SJ, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(9):1290–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Holloway I, Galvin K. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. John Wiley & Sons; 2016.Google Scholar
- 13.Bamidele O, McGarvey H, Lagan BM, Ali N, Chinegwundoh Mbe F, Parahoo K, et al. Life after prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and thematic synthesis of the post-treatment experiences of Black African and Black Caribbean men. Eur J Cancer Care. 2018;27(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Greidanus MA, de Boer AGEM, de Rijk AE, Tiedtke CM. Dierckx de Casterlé B, Frings-Dresen MHW et al. perceived employer-related barriers and facilitators for work participation of cancer survivors: a systematic review of employers' and survivors' perspectives. Psycho-Oncology. 2018;27(3):725–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4514.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 58.Stergiou-Kita M, Grigorovich A, Tseung V, Milosevic E, Hebert D, Phan S, et al. Qualitative meta-synthesis of survivors' work experiences and the development of strategies to facilitate return to work. J Cancer Surviv Res Pract. 2014;8(4):657–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0377-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Tucker SR, Speer SA, Peters S. Development of an explanatory model of sexual intimacy following treatment for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence. Soc Sci Med. 2016;163:80–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 64.Wells M, Williams B, Firnigl D, Lang H, Coyle J, Kroll T, et al. Supporting 'work-related goals' rather than 'return to work' after cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of 25 qualitative studies. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22(6):1208–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 69.Zomkowski K, Cruz de Souza B, Pinheiro da Silva F, Moreira GM, de Souza Cunha N, Sperandio FF. Physical symptoms and working performance in female breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(13):1485–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1300950.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 71.Lim C, Laidsaar-Powell R, Butow P. Qualitative experiences of colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2019. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=131576.
- 75.Welfare AIoHa. Cancer in Australia 2019. Canberra, Australia 2019.Google Scholar
- 76.Australia C. National Cancer Control Indicators. 2019. https://ncci.canceraustralia.gov.au/.
- 77.Australian Bureau of Statistics. Cultural diversity in Australia 2016. In: Statistics ABo, editor. Canberra. 2017.Google Scholar