↓ Skip to main content

Unmet care needs of advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#28 of 1,443)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
35 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
426 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
487 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unmet care needs of advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12904-018-0346-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tao Wang, Alex Molassiotis, Betty Pui Man Chung, Jing-Yu Tan

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to identify the unmet care needs and their associated variables in patients with advanced cancer and informal caregivers, alongside summarizing the tools used for needs assessment. Ten electronic databases were searched systematically from inception of each database to December 2016 to determine eligible studies. Studies that considered the unmet care needs of either adult patients with advanced cancer or informal caregivers, regardless of the study design, were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was utilized for quality appraisal of the included studies. Content analysis was used to identify unmet needs, and descriptive analysis was adopted to synthesize other outcomes. Fifty studies were included, and their methodological quality was generally robust. The prevalence of unmet needs varied across studies. Twelve unmet need domains were identified in patients with advanced cancer, and seven among informal caregivers. The three most commonly reported domains for patients were psychological, physical, and healthcare service and information. The most prominent unmet items of these domains were emotional support (10.1-84.4%), fatigue (18-76.3%), and "being informed about benefits and side-effects of treatment" (4-66.7%). The most commonly identified  unmet needs for informal caregivers were information needs, including illness and treatment information (26-100%) and care-related information (21-100%). Unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer were associated with their physical symptoms, anxiety, and quality of life. The most commonly used instruments for needs assessment among patients with advanced cancer were the Supportive Care Needs Survey (N = 8) and Problems and Needs in Palliative Care questionnaire (N = 5). The majority of the included studies investigated unmet needs from the perspectives of either patients or caregivers with a cross-sectional study design using single time-point assessments. Moreover, significant heterogeneity, including differences in study contexts, assessment methods, instruments for measurement, need classifications, and reporting methods, were identified across studies. Both advanced cancer patients and informal caregivers reported a wide range of context-bound unmet needs. Examining their unmet needs on the basis of viewing patients and their informal caregivers as a whole unit will be highly optimal. Unmet care needs should be comprehensively evaluated  from the perspectives of all stakeholders and interpreted by using rigorously designed mixed methods research and longitudinal studies within a given context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 487 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 487 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 9%
Student > Bachelor 37 8%
Researcher 34 7%
Student > Postgraduate 32 7%
Other 76 16%
Unknown 210 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 113 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 57 12%
Psychology 33 7%
Social Sciences 18 4%
Computer Science 8 2%
Other 27 6%
Unknown 231 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2022.
All research outputs
#818,210
of 24,973,800 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#28
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,642
of 335,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,973,800 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.