Unmet informational and supportive care needs of patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review of the evidence

C. Paterson, B. T. Jensen, J. B. Jensen, G. Nabi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Little is known about the unmet supportive care needs of patients affected by muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). We set out to determine the different domains of unmet supportive care needs for patients affected by MIBC. Literature Search: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA Statement Guidelines. A sensitive search was performed in electronic databases (DARE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, BNI, PsychINFO, EMBASE and CIHAHL) from the earliest date available to January 2017. Data Evaluation: 1405 references were retrieved, 8 articles met the eligibility criteria and were appraised and ranked by strength using the levels of evidence. Synthesis: Individual unmet needs were classified into the following domains: patient-clinician communication, daily living needs, health system/information needs, practical needs, family-related needs, social needs, psychological needs, physical needs and intimacy needs. Patients reported high unmet needs at diagnosis and into survivorship. Conclusions: This review contributes to a greater understanding of the unmet supportive care needs of patients affected by MIBC. Findings reflect a paucity of research, but existing studies indicated needs commonly related to intimacy, informational, physical and psychological needs. Despite the emerging evidence-base, the current within study limitations precludes our understanding about how the needs of patients evolve over time.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)92-101
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Oncology Nursing
Volume35
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Unmet informational and supportive care needs of patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer: A systematic review of the evidence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this