↓ Skip to main content

A systematic literature review of the prevalence of and risk factors for supportive care needs among women with gynaecological cancer and their caregivers

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
Title
A systematic literature review of the prevalence of and risk factors for supportive care needs among women with gynaecological cancer and their caregivers
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-3971-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa L. Beesley, Chalachew Alemayehu, Penelope M. Webb

Abstract

This review aimed to determine the prevalence of met and unmet needs, and the risk factors for unmet needs among people affected by gynaecological cancer. The review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies were identified though a range of electronic databases in October and November 2016. Study quality was independently appraised by two people. Thirty-seven studies were included (1 review, 24 quantitative and 12 qualitative). The evidence was of mixed quality. The total burden of needs affecting women with gynaecological cancer and also their caregivers predominately related to comprehensive care and psychological concerns. The major moderate-to-high-level unmet needs of women with gynaecological cancer were for help explicitly with fear of recurrence, worries of caregivers and fatigue, and for women who developed lymphoedema were with pain and associated costs. Qualitative studies identified disease-specific needs related to sexuality issues (including fertility, sexual functioning, relationship concerns, managing vaginal changes, pregnancy care, premature menopause), genetic testing and disease-specific peer support. Women at risk of having unmet needs include those who are younger, with advanced disease, with lymphoedema or a high symptom burden, are unable to work, have mental health issues, have poor social support or live in rural or remote locations. Understanding the needs of women with gynaecological cancer and their caregivers is essential to improving care and outcomes. Current data are limited thus there is a need for qualitative studies of patient-caregiver dyad and vulnerable subgroups and well-designed quantitative studies of women with each type of gynaecological and their caregivers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Master 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 56 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 14%
Psychology 20 13%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Unspecified 10 7%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 55 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,922,331
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,514
of 4,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,840
of 439,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#69
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 439,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.