Abstract
Purpose
Improved health outcomes for individuals ever diagnosed with cancer require comprehensive, coordinated care that addresses their supportive care needs. Implementing interventions to address these is confounded by a lack of evidence on population needs and a large pool of potential interventions. This systematic review estimates the point prevalence of different supportive care needs stratified by the tool used to measure needs and cancer type in Australia.
Methods
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from 2010 to April 2023 to identify relevant studies published on the prevalence of supportive care needs in Australia.
Results
We identified 35 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The highest prevalent unmet need across all cancers was ‘fear of cancer spreading’ (20.7%) from the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form 34 (SCNS-SF34), ranging from 9.4% for individuals ever diagnosed with haematological cancer to 36.3% for individuals ever diagnosed with gynaecological cancer, and ‘concerns about cancer coming back’ (17.9%) from the Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs (CaSUN), ranging from 9.7% for individuals ever diagnosed with prostate cancer to 37.8% for individuals ever diagnosed with breast cancer. Two studies assessed needs in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, reporting the highest needs for financial worries (21.1%).
Conclusions
Point prevalence estimates presented here, combined with estimates of the costs and effects of potential interventions, can be used within economic evaluations to inform evidence-based local service provision to address the supportive care needs of individuals ever diagnosed with cancer.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
Local health services can use local evidence to prioritise the implementation of interventions targeted at unmet needs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Cancer is a leading cause of disease burden, accounting for 250 million disability-adjusted life-years lost internationally in 2019 [1]. An estimated 151,000 Australians will be diagnosed with cancer in 2021, with over 1 million diagnosed in their lifetime [2]. This is expected to rise due to increasing prevalence from population growth, ageing [3], and increased survival due to earlier detection [4] and medical advancements [5]. As a result, more people are living with the effects of cancer. These effects can include a range of supportive care needs, including physical, emotional, social, psychological, informational, spiritual, and practical [6] that may result from either anticancer treatment or a cancer diagnosis itself.
A range of tools have been developed to identify these unmet supportive care needs, including generic tools applicable across all patients with any cancer diagnosis [7], tools for patients with specific cancer types (e.g. breast cancer [8, 9], melanoma [10]), for specific population groups [11], or for specific points on the care continuum [12]. Studies using these tools suggest that supportive care needs are not well met in practice, with systematic reviews reporting high unmet needs across daily living, psychological needs, informational needs, psychosocial needs, physical needs, spiritual needs, communication needs, and sexuality needs domains [13, 14]. These unmet supportive care needs contribute to poor quality of life [15,16,17,18] and reduced survival [19, 20] and should, therefore, be addressed as part of routine care to improve health and meet the Australian Optimal Care Pathways [21]. Understanding the prevalence of different unmet supportive care needs can identify current gaps in clinical care and help target service prioritisation to address these.
We undertook a systematic review to analyse and review the available evidence on the prevalence of unmet supportive care needs in Australia from a policymaker perspective, to reflect gaps in the reporting of the results of primary studies and to demonstrate how the gaps can be addressed to support priority setting for services to focus on supportive care needs. We add to an earlier systematic review, published in 2019, evaluating the prevalence of supportive care needs in Australia [14] by including studies published since the earlier review (mid-2018), extending the search strategy to include a wider range of study participants by excluding the need for explicit use of the term survivors due to the changing definition of this term over time [22] and employing a different methodology to estimate prevalence, disaggregating results by cancer type and supportive care needs tools.
Methods
Search strategy
The present search strategy was adapted from Edney et al. [23] to identify the supportive care needs of individuals ever diagnosed with cancer in Australia. The search strategy aimed to identify relevant studies published since 2010 in MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus and included Medical Subject Headings, Emtree headings, and related text (title and abstract) and keyword searches using terms to describe the population and supportive care need terms. The search was replicated in Google Scholar using keywords with the first 100 results screened. The search strategy aimed to identify the full breadth of supportive care needs by including synonyms for specific needs identified from all domains of needs identified in the Supportive Care Framework for Cancer Care [6] and across common tools used to measure needs as reported previously [23]. The search strategy for MEDLINE is presented in Supplementary Table 1. The initial search was conducted in November 2020, updated in July 2021 and again in April 2023.
Inclusion criteria
This systematic review included quantitative studies conducted in Australia that employed one of four generic validated tools—Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form 34 (SCNS-SF34), Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs (CaSUN), Supportive Care Needs Assessment Tool for Indigenous People (SCNAT-IP), and Survivors’ Unmet Needs Survey (SUNS) (see Table 1)—to assess the prevalence of unmet needs in adults (aged 18 or over) who had been diagnosed with any type of cancer at any time. Articles that reported on cancer site-specific validated tools, used a study-specific tool, or reported mixed results that could not be separated by the generic tools were excluded. Peer-reviewed primary studies published between 2010 and 2023 were included; conference abstracts, opinion pieces, letters to the editor and qualitative studies on the experiences of patients and their needs were excluded.
Data extraction
An extraction form was developed and tested to ensure all relevant information was included in the form. Data were extracted by one reviewer (JJ) and reviewed by a second (JR). Extracted information included bibliographic details, geographical location (state/territory, remoteness), cancer site and stage, time since diagnosis, sample size, patient age and gender, eligibility criteria, study design, tool employed, sample response rate, overall proportion reporting moderate to high unmet supportive care needs, top supportive care needs reported, any sub-group analyses undertaken, and the prevalence of unmet needs. Baseline data was extracted for longitudinal studies and corresponding authors were contacted where complete data were not reported.
Assessment of methodological quality
The quality of all eligible studies was assessed using a tool for systematic reviews adapted from Mols et al. [24] by Miroševič et al. [25] (see Supplementary Table 2). Standard quality appraisal tools for prevalence studies were not appropriate for measuring supportive care needs here as their focus was on measuring the prevalence of conditions. One question was excluded, which was not relevant to our study aim (Q11: an attempt is made to find factors associated with higher unmet needs), resulting in the highest possible score of 11. Studies scoring more than 7 were considered high quality; studies scoring between 5 and 7 were considered moderate quality, and studies scoring lower than 5 were considered low quality. Studies were included if they met 5 or more of the 11 quality criteria [25].
Data synthesis
The prevalence of moderate or high unmet needs by broad domains of need (see Table 1) was synthesised by cancer type and by tool employed. Prevalence by cancer was estimated through weighted averages based on sample size for items across studies using the same tool. Not all studies reported the prevalence of all items in the tools, assuming no prevalence for these items represents an underestimate of the true prevalence. We therefore assumed the prevalence of unreported items at 50% of the items with the lowest reported prevalence for each study with incomplete data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted where the prevalence for each unreported item was assumed to be 0 (representing an underestimate of the true prevalence) and at 0.1% below the lowest reported prevalence (representing an overestimate of the true prevalence).
Results
A total of 7877 records were identified in the initial search of the three databases, with an additional 211 records identified in the updated search in July 2021 and a further 593 records in April 2023. One author who was contacted for primary data provided an additional study that had not been captured in our search. After removing duplicates, 4735 titles and abstracts were independently screened against the inclusion criteria by two reviewers (JR and LE). The remaining 415 records underwent full-text review (JR and JJ), resulting in 35 records for inclusion. The primary reason for exclusion at full-text review was the use of a tool other than those specified in the inclusion criteria (n = 122). Other exclusion reasons are presented in the PRISMA diagram (Fig. 1).
Characteristics of included studies
Of the 35 studies included, 30 were cross-sectional and five were longitudinal (Table 2), with the majority (71%) published since 2014. Participants ranged from a mean age of 35 [26] through to 76 years [27], with the range of time since diagnosis varying from less than three months [28,29,30,31] to more than 20 years [32,33,34]. A range of cancer types was included: nine studies presented prevalence across different cancer types, one compared breast and brain cancer, and the remaining 25 focused on single types of cancer, including gynaecological (n = 7), haematological (n = 4), breast (n = 5), brain (n = 3), prostate (n = 3), testicular (n = 1), neuroendocrine (n = 1), and pancreatic (n = 1) cancer. The majority of studies captured unmet needs with SCNS-SF34 (n = 21); 10 used CaSUN, two used SUNs, and two used SCNAT-IP. Only 6 of the 35 studies reported prevalence estimates for each item on the tool used. Study authors of the remaining studies were contacted for unreported data, which led to full responses for an additional 14 studies. Incomplete prevalence data for all items remained for 15 studies.
Methodological quality
Most studies (26/35) were high quality (Supplementary Table 3), and all met the minimum requirement for methodological quality [25]. All studies presented inclusion and exclusion criteria and employed a standardised or validated unmet needs measure due to our inclusion criteria. Most described informed patient consent (33/35), socio-demographic profile of the sample (34/35), type of cancer treatment (31/35), time since diagnosis or treatment (24/35), and study limitations (32/35). Less than a fifth (5/35) reported participation and response rates over 75%.
The most prevalent unmet needs of cancer patients in Australia across all cancers
Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form 34 (SCNS-SF34)
Table 3 presents the top ten unmet supportive care needs reported by cancer survivors from studies using the SCNS-SF34. In this table, the findings are presented by cancer type for the studies that only included participants with specific cancers (n = 15 studies) and by mixed cancer type for the studies that included patients with various cancers (n = 6 studies). The last column presents the aggregate results across all 21 studies. Prevalence estimates for all 34 items are provided in Supplementary Table 4.
Aggregated results across all cancer types
The aggregated results found that the highest prevalence was observed for items relating to psychological needs, with prevalence estimates ranging from 14.7 to 20.7%. Among the top 10 unmet supportive care needs, the remaining items were related to physical and daily living needs, specifically, changes in usual activities and energy/tiredness.
Results by cancer type
When examining studies grouped by cancer type, including mixed cancer type, it becomes evident that more than half of the top 10 prevalent unmet supportive care needs fell within the psychological needs domain (indicated in yellow). This is followed by the domain of physical and daily living needs (represented in green), which accounts for a quarter of the top 10 prevalent unmet needs. Notably, concern for others and future uncertainty ranked among the top 10 for all cancer types, with the highest prevalence reported by individuals ever diagnosed with brain cancer (47.1%) and pancreatic cancer (37.3%) and the lowest prevalence observed in individuals ever diagnosed with prostate cancer (14.9%, 11.7%). Gynaecological and prostate cancers were the only two cancer types where less than half of the top 10 prevalent items were within the psychological needs domain. Those ever diagnosed with gynaecological cancer had high health system and information needs. In contrast, those ever diagnosed with prostate cancer had high sexual needs. Sexual needs were exclusively prevalent in the top 10 among those ever diagnosed with prostate or breast cancer.
Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs (CaSUN)
The top ten unmet supportive care needs, as measured by the CaSUN tool, are presented in Table 4.
Aggregated results across all cancer types
Aggregate results reported that half of the items with the highest prevalence were related to psychological needs, with prevalence estimates ranging from 10.0 to 17.9%. Comprehensive cancer care, sexual needs, and complementary therapy were also identified at the aggregate level. Prevalence estimates for all 35 items are provided in Supplementary Table 5.
Results by cancer type
For breast, brain, testicular, and gynaecological cancer, three or more of the top ten items belong to the existential survivorship domain. In contrast, prostate cancer and studies with mixed cancer types reported fewer items in the existential survivorship domain, reporting high needs for items from the comprehensive cancer care domain. Concerns about the cancer coming back was ranked in the top 10 for all cancers, with prevalence ranging from 37.8% for breast cancer patients to 9.7% for prostate cancer patients. Accessible hospital parking was also ranked in the top 10 for all cancers, and the prevalence ranged from 35.2% for studies with different cancer types to 7.6% for gynaecological cancer patients.
Survivors’ Unmet Needs Survey (SUNS)
Four studies reported on the unmet needs of individuals ever diagnosed with haematological cancer: two captured unmet needs using SUNS and two used SCNS-SF34 to capture unmet needs, as reported in Table 2. A comparison of the top 10 reported unmet needs captured with each tool is reported in Table 5. The most prevalent needs identified were psychological or emotional needs, regardless of the tool used. SCNS-SF34 additionally identified several needs in the physical health domain, including ‘not being able to do the things you used to do’, ‘energy/ tiredness’, ‘work around the home’, and ‘feeling unwell’. These items are similar to items reported in the emotional health domain in the SUNS tool, though these are framed as the psychological impact of dealing with these physical changes.
Prevalence rankings of unmet needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer patients
Supportive Care Needs Assessment Tool for Indigenous People (SCNAT-IP)
Two studies assessed unmet needs specifically in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations using the SCNAT-IP. The first study [28] had 55% of participants aged between 40 and 59, with 55% diagnosed within the last 3 months, whilst the second study [35] had a median age of 57 years (interquartile range of 47.5–64.5) with 70% diagnosed in the last year. Both studies had a similar proportion of female participants, with 57% in each study, and included patients with any cancer. The most prevalent unmet need reported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders was financial worries, such as the cost of accommodation and travel for treatment. As with the tools designed for the general population, the unmet needs with some of the highest prevalence were in the physical and psychological needs domain, with the common theme of uncertainty and worrying around the recurrence of cancer (see Table 6). Prevalence estimates for all 26 items are provided in Supplementary Table 6.
Discussion
This review sought to estimate the prevalence of supportive care needs in Australians ever diagnosed with cancer. Our goal was to identify evidence gaps and, based on the most prevalent unmet needs, inform research priorities and service planning for supportive care needs. An extensive literature review identified a total of 35 primary quantitative studies. The highest unmet supportive care needs fell in the domain of psychological needs, including items related to fear of cancer spreading or recurring, concern for others, and stress, followed by items in the physical need domain. This high prevalence of psychological needs followed by physical needs was similarly reported in a 2019 review [14], despite the inclusion here of an additional 20 primary studies due to broader inclusion criteria, the exclusion of studies prior to 2010, and the use of a different methodology to estimate prevalence. However, the actual prevalence reported differed between the two reviews, with point estimates reported herein toward the lower bound of the ranges reported in Lisy et al. [14]. Whilst Lisy et al. [14] report the lowest and highest prevalence reported across primary studies where the specific item was endorsed by more than 10% of the study, we estimated a weighted average prevalence across all primary studies stratified by cancer type. For example, whilst fear of cancer recurrence was identified as a high need in both reviews, the reported prevalence in Lisy et al. [14] ranged from 14 to 42%, whereas we report a weighted average prevalence of 20.7% based on SCNS-SF34 and 17.9% based on CaSUN. Furthermore, we report prevalence by cancer type, finding significant variation in this need, ranging from 9.4% for individuals ever diagnosed with haematological cancer to 37.8% for individuals ever diagnosed with breast cancer.
Weighted point estimates and how they vary by cancer type provide a basis for stakeholder engagement around priorities for action. For example, prevalence estimates from the SCNS-SF34 showed that other than for prostate and gynaecological cancers, ‘concern for others’, ‘not being able to be the things you used to do’, and ‘energy/tiredness’ are ranked in the top five for all the six other cancer categories. For prostate cancer and gynaecological cancers, ‘changes in sexual relationships’ and ‘fear of spread’ are the top-ranked supportive care need, respectively. Such findings could inform discussions with stakeholders that lead to the prioritisation of defined steps to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and value of general and cancer-specific interventions that address specific supportive care needs.
To further inform and support stakeholder engagement, preliminary literature searches could be undertaken to identify existing evidence on interventions that address the top-ranked supportive care needs. A recently published review of reviews of supportive care needs interventions provides a starting resource for such preliminary reviews [23]. As an example, in the current review, energy and tiredness were listed as a prevalent need across cancer types, though they were included in the physical and daily living need domain in the SCNS-SF34 (‘energy/tiredness’), in the emotional need domain in the SUNS (‘dealing with tiredness’) and in the physical and psychological need domain in the SCNAT-IP (‘feeling tired (e.g. sleeping ok)’). The review of reviews identified 99 reviews of interventions to address fatigue, primarily in patients with any type of cancer. There were also reviews in patients with specific cancers, including 16 reviews in breast cancer, four in prostate cancer, two in lung cancer, and single reviews for several other cancers. Most reviews focused on exercise interventions, whilst others included acupuncture, Chinese medicine, complementary and alternative medicines, diet, psychological therapy, expressive writing, art therapy, music therapy, massage, education, and pharmacological interventions [23].
From this review, stakeholders may identify the supportive care needs with the highest unmet needs and then, using the previously published review of reviews, identify a range of potential interventions to address these needs [23]. Following a similar process to that used by Gray et al. [36], stakeholders can then be supported through a process of selecting interventions that are identified as being feasible and acceptable for their local context, which could range from a specific local health service through to local health networks or national service provision, and for which evidence of effectiveness is expected to be transferable. A local economic evaluation of the selected interventions can then reflect their local context, including population characteristics, prevalence of cancer and unmet needs, cost and effectiveness estimates of proposed interventions, and information on existing services. Again, stakeholders can be engaged to support the conduct of an economic evaluation to deliver health services with the greatest net health benefit for their local context [37].
Comparing our findings with country-specific international literature presents challenges due to limited available data. Apart from the Lisy et al. [14] review discussed earlier in this manuscript, we could only find two systematic reviews that specifically aimed to assess the prevalence of unmet needs within specific countries. The first review investigated the supportive care needs of Chinese patients, differentiating between native and immigrant backgrounds [38]. The study analysed 45 studies and found that the most common unmet need for native and immigrant Chinese individuals fell within the health system and information domain, followed by psychological needs. The second review focused on unmet needs among Japanese patients but included only five studies involving adults [39]. The review found that the psychological domain had the highest unmet needs, followed by information needs. It is worth noting that both these studies reported only the number of studies in which the item or domain was endorsed and the range of reported prevalence. Given the potential impact of different healthcare models on patients’ unmet needs, we recommend conducting similar reviews in other countries to facilitate informed service prioritisation.
Comparison across tools
Whilst there is a general pattern of high unmet psychological needs, there were variations in the prevalence of these needs between studies using different assessment tools. When considering all the studies collectively, those using the SCNS-SF34 tool tend to report a higher prevalence of unmet psychological needs than those using the CaSUN tool. When considering specific cancer types, we observed variations in the estimated prevalence of the top-ranked unmet supportive care need, depending on whether the CaSUN or the SCNS-SF34 tools were used. For individuals ever diagnosed with breast cancer or those with mixed cancer types, studies using CaSUN estimated a higher prevalence (37.8% and 35.2%) than those using SCNS-SF34 (19.9% and 22.4%). Conversely, for brain, pancreatic, and gynaecological cancers, studies using SCNS-SF34 reported a higher prevalence (47.1%, 40.6%, and 36.3%) in comparison to CaSUN (26.4%, not available, and 13.0%). This suggests that different assessment tools may capture needs more salient to specific cancer types or individuals at various points on the care continuum. Alternatively, these differences could result from methodological distinctions among the primary studies, potentially influenced by response bias. These differences could influence decisions related to service prioritisation. For example, our review identified a similar top unmet need among individuals ever diagnosed with gynaecological cancer, but with varying prevalence estimates: ‘concerns about the cancer coming back’ was reported at 13.0% when using CaSUN, whilst ‘fears about the cancer spreading’ had a prevalence of 36.3% using SCNS-SF34. The choice between using prevalence estimates from CaSUN or SCNS-SF34 may have implications for cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of interventions targeting this unmet need. It is important to note that both tools have demonstrated their reliability and validity [40], and the prevalence proportions were estimated from three or more studies with over 800 participants each (SCNS-SF34, n = 997; CaSUN, n = 840). In this situation, decision-makers have two options: they can review the primary studies to determine which ones best reflect the patient population relevant to the proposed intervention within their local context, or they can conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the cost-effectiveness across varying prevalence proportions.
The SCNAT-IP tool, specifically developed for and by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations [41], can provide valuable insights into the unique experiences, needs, and outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer patients. The high incidence and mortality rates of cancer among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, as well as their lower cancer survival rates [42], highlight the importance of tailoring healthcare interventions to meet the specific needs of this population. Therefore, the inclusion of culturally specific patient-reported measures like the SCNAT-IP is crucial for providing equitable and effective cancer care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the conclusions of this review are limited by the range of primary studies available for inclusion. For example, no primary studies assessing the unmet supportive care needs of individuals ever diagnosed with rectal or kidney cancer met our inclusion criteria despite having a higher age-standardised prevalence in Australia than pancreatic or brain cancer [43]. Aggregated results are, therefore, influenced by the needs of individuals ever diagnosed with the types of cancer included in the review. Whilst we present estimates weighted by the sample size of the primary study, we do not consider the proportional prevalence of cancer type in Australia. This additional input should be considered by stakeholders in prioritising services to address needs. Similarly, conclusions of prevalent needs are limited by the items included in the tools. For example, not all tools include all items, such as accessibility of hospital parking, and some more recently identified needs, such as concern with cognitive issues [44], are not included. Second, this review makes assumptions on prevalence where complete data was unavailable for all items from the primary studies. Whilst every effort was made to contact the authors to obtain this additional information (complete data was received from 48% of those contacted), for items where prevalence was not available, we assumed that the prevalence was 50% lower than the lowest reported item in the respective tool. The conventional approach in other systematic reviews has been to report the number of studies in which the item was endorsed and the range of prevalences reported. However, we found this approach had limitations regarding its utility for service prioritisation, as it often resulted in wide prevalence ranges. Additionally, these reviews tended to assume that unreported unmet need items were not endorsed by respondents, introducing a potential bias. Given that our primary focus in this manuscript is to demonstrate how the prevalence of unmet needs can inform service prioritisation, we aimed to develop a method to provide more precise point prevalence estimates. Therefore, we consider our approach more appropriate than assuming these items had zero prevalence. Importantly, sensitivity analyses presenting an upper (assumed prevalence at 0.1% below the lowest reported prevalence) and lower (assumed prevalence at 0) bound on potential prevalence estimates did not change the substantive interpretation of the results. Third, we could not compare the needs of patients currently undergoing treatment with those who had completed treatment as the primary studies reported on the period since diagnosis and treatment received rather than treatment status. Fourth, we could not investigate trends due to the heterogeneity in the primary studies. Lastly, it is important to recognise the impact of our decision to focus the review exclusively on studies employing one of the four generic unmet needs tools. Whilst this choice was essential for enabling point prevalence estimates, it resulted in the exclusion of a significant number of papers. This exclusion may have implications for the generalisability and comprehensiveness of our findings.
Conclusions
This review examines the prevalence of unmet needs for individuals ever diagnosed with cancer across various cancer types. Our findings confirm the high prevalence of unmet supportive care needs for Australians ever diagnosed with cancer, underscoring the necessity for improved supportive care services. Notably, psychological supportive care needs emerge as the most prevalent across all cancer types, highlighting the importance of prioritising interventions in this domain. In addition, this review provides valuable point prevalence estimates for specific unmet supportive care needs across all cancers and within particular cancer types. These estimates can be combined with cost and effectiveness data to guide the prioritisation of interventions addressing supportive care needs for cancer survivors.
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.
References
Kocarnik JM, Compton K, Dean FE, Fu W, Gaw BL, Harvey JD et al (2022) Cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life years for 29 cancer groups from 2010 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. JAMA oncology 8(3):420–444
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021) Cancer in Australia 2021. Cancer series no 133 Cat no CAN 144. AIHW, Canberra
Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration (2019) Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA oncology
Schiffman JD, Fisher PG, Gibbs P (2015) Early detection of cancer: past, present, and future. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book 35(1):57–65
Jackson SE, Chester JD (2015) Personalised cancer medicine. Int J Cancer 137(2):262–266
Fitch M (2008) Supportive care framework. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal/Revue canadienne de soins infirmiers en oncologie 18(1):6–14
Boyes A, Girgis A, Lecathelinais C (2009) Brief assessment of adult cancer patients' perceived needs: development and validation of the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34). J Eval Clin Pract 15(4):602–606
Thewes B, Meiser B, Taylor A, Phillips K, Pendlebury S, Capp A et al (2005) Fertility-and menopause-related information needs of younger women with a diagnosis of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(22):5155–5165
Girgis A, Boyes A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Burrows S (2000) Perceived needs of women diagnosed with breast cancer: rural versus urban location. Aust N Z J Public Health 24(2):166–173
Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher R, Hersey P, Paul C, Foot G (1999) Assessing the perceived needs of patients attending an outpatient melanoma clinic. J Psychosoc Oncol 17(3-4):101–118
Garvey G, Thewes B, He V, Davis E, Girgis A, Valery PC et al (2016) Indigenous cancer patient and staff attitudes towards unmet needs screening using the SCNAT-IP. Support Care Cancer 24(1):215–223
Campbell HS, Hall AE, Sanson-Fisher RW, Barker D, Turner D, Taylor-Brown J (2014) Development and validation of the short-form survivor unmet needs survey (SF-SUNS). Support Care Cancer 22(4):1071–1079
Harrison JD, Young JM, Price MA, Butow PN, Solomon MJ (2009) What are the unmet supportive care needs of people with cancer? A systematic review. Support Care Cancer 17(8):1117–1128
Lisy K, Langdon L, Piper A, Jefford M (2019) Identifying the most prevalent unmet needs of cancer survivors in Australia: a systematic review. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 15(5):e68–e78
Cochrane A, Woods S, Dunne S, Gallagher P (2022) Unmet supportive care needs associated with quality of life for people with lung cancer: a systematic review of the evidence 2007–2020. European Journal of Cancer Care 31(1):e13525
Faller H, Hass HG, Engehausen D, Reuss-Borst M, Wöckel A (2019) Supportive care needs and quality of life in patients with breast and gynecological cancer attending inpatient rehabilitation. A prospective study Acta Oncologica 58(4):417–424
Afiyanti Y, Milanti NA, Putri NRH (2018) Supportive care needs in predicting the quality of life among gynecological cancer patients. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal 28(1):22
Bellas O, Kemp E, Edney L, Oster C, Roseleur J (2022) The impacts of unmet supportive care needs of cancer survivors in Australia: a qualitative systematic review. European Journal of Cancer Care:e13726
Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C et al (2017) Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. Jama. 318(2):197–198
Denis F, Basch E, Septans A-L, Bennouna J, Urban T, Dueck AC et al (2019) Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. Jama. 321(3):306–307
Cancer Council Victoria and Department of Health Victoria (2021) Optimal care pathway for people with breast cancer, 2nd edn. Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, p 2021
Surbone A, Annunziata M, Santoro A, Tirelli U, Tralongo P (2013) Cancer patients and survivors: changing words or changing culture? Ann Oncol 24(10):2468–2471
Edney LC, Roseleur J, Gray J, Koczwara B, Karnon J (2022) Mapping a decade of interventions to address the supportive care needs of individuals living with or beyond cancer: a scoping review of reviews. Support Care Cancer 1-12
Mols F, Vingerhoets AJJM, Coebergh JW, van de Poll-Franse LV (2005) Quality of life among long-term breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer 41(17):2613–2619
Miroševič Š, Prins JB, Selič P, Zaletel Kragelj L, Klemenc KZ (2019) Prevalence and factors associated with unmet needs in post-treatment cancer survivors: a systematic review. European Journal of Cancer Care 28(3):e13060
Hall AE, Sanson-Fisher RW, Lynagh MC, Tzelepis F, D'Este C (2015) What do haematological cancer survivors want help with? A cross-sectional investigation of unmet supportive care needs. BMC research notes 8:221
Mazariego CG, Juraskova I, Campbell R, Smith DP (2020) Long-term unmet supportive care needs of prostate cancer survivors: 15-year follow-up from the NSW Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study. Support Care Cancer 28(11):5511–5520
Garvey G, Beesley VL, Janda M, O’Rourke PK, He VY, Hawkes AL et al (2015) Psychometric properties of an Australian supportive care needs assessment tool for Indigenous patients with cancer. Cancer. 121(17):3018–3026
Beesley VL, Janda M, Goldstein D, Gooden H, Merrett ND, O’Connell DL et al (2016) A tsunami of unmet needs: pancreatic and ampullary cancer patients' supportive care needs and use of community and allied health services. Psycho-Oncology. 25(2):150–157
Yates P, Carter R, Cockerell R, Cowan D, Dixon C, Magnus A et al (2021) An integrated multicomponent care model for men affected by prostate cancer: a feasibility study of TrueNTH Australia. Psycho-Oncology. 30(9):1544–1554
Langbecker D, Yates P (2016) Primary brain tumor patients’ supportive care needs and multidisciplinary rehabilitation, community and psychosocial support services: awareness, referral and utilization. J Neuro-Oncol 127(1):91–102
Beesley VL, Burge M, Dumbrava M, Callum J, Neale RE, Wyld DK (2018) Perceptions of care and patient-reported outcomes in people living with neuroendocrine tumours. Support Care Cancer 26(9):3153–3161
Dunn J, Goodwin B, Aitken JF, March S, Crawford-Williams F, Ireland M et al (2021) Are national cancer control indicators for patient experiences being met in regional and remote Australia? A cross-sectional study of cancer survivors who travelled for treatment. BMJ Open 11(2)
Williams N, Griffin G, Farrell V, Rea A, Murray K, Hauck YL (2018) The supportive care needs of women experiencing gynaecological cancer: a Western Australian cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer 18(1)
Bernardes CM, Diaz A, Valery PC, Sabesan S, Baxi S, Aoun S et al (2019) Unmet supportive care needs among Indigenous cancer patients across Australia. Rural Remote Health 19(3):4660
Gray J, Thynne, T., Eaton, V., Reade, B., Larcombe, R., Baldacchino, L., Gehlert, J., Hakendorf, P., Karnon, J., for the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network’s (SALHN) Hypoglycaemia Clinical Working Group. A framework for local economic evaluation (LEE) applied to health service interventions to prevent hospital-acquired hypoglycaemia. (submitted). 2022.
Gray J, Thynne, T., Eaton, V., Larcombe, R., Tantiongco, M., Karnon, J., for the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network’s (SALHN) Hypoglycaemia Clinical Working Group. Expert elicitation as a facilitator for local economic evaluation (LEE): adjusting published intervention effects to reflect the local context. (submitted). 2022.
Wu VS, Smith AB, Girgis A (2022) The unmet supportive care needs of Chinese patients and caregivers affected by cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 31(6):e13269
Tsuchiya M, Tazaki M, Fujita R, Kodama S, Takata Y (2023) A mixed-method systematic review of unmet care and support needs among Japanese cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv
Tian L, Cao X, Feng X (2019) Evaluation of psychometric properties of needs assessment tools in cancer patients: a systematic literature review. PLoS One 14(1):e0210242
Garvey G, Beesley VL, Janda M, Jacka C, Green AC, O’Rourke P et al (2012) The development of a supportive care needs assessment tool for Indigenous people with cancer. BMC Cancer 12(1):300
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2018) Cancer in Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people of Australia. AIHW Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-in-indigenous-australians/contents/about
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2022) Cancer Data in Australia Canberra. AIHW Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-data-in-australia/contents/summary
Vizer LM, Mikles SP, Piepmeier AT (2022) Cancer-related cognitive impairment in survivors of adolescent and young adult non-central nervous system cancer: a scoping review. Psycho-Oncology. 31(8):1275–1285
Ahern T, Gardner A, Courtney M (2016) Exploring patient support by breast care nurses and geographical residence as moderators of the unmet needs and self-efficacy of Australian women with breast cancer: Results from a cross-sectional, nationwide survey. Eur J Oncol Nurs 23:72–80
Alananzeh IM, Levesque JV, Kwok C, Salamonson Y, Everett B (2019) The unmet supportive care needs of arab Australian and arab jordanian cancer survivors: an international comparative survey. Cancer Nurs 42(3):E51–E60
Beesley VL, Price MA, Webb PM, O'Rourke P, Marquart L, Butow PN (2013) Changes in supportive care needs after first-line treatment for ovarian cancer: identifying care priorities and risk factors for future unmet needs. Psycho-Oncology. 22(7):1565–1571
Blaschke SM, Gough KC, Chua BH, Francis PA, Cockerell R, Drosdowsky AF et al (2019) Implementation of a multidisciplinary model of care for women with metastatic breast cancer: challenges and lessons learned. Clinical Breast Cancer 19(2):e327–ee36
Boyes AW, Girgis A, D'Este C, Zucca AC (2012) Prevalence and correlates of cancer survivors’ supportive care needs 6 months after diagnosis: a population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer 12
Boyes AW, Clinton-Mcharg T, Waller AE, Steele A, D'Este CA, Sanson-Fisher RW (2015) Prevalence and correlates of the unmet supportive care needs of individuals diagnosed with a haematological malignancy. Acta Oncol 54(4):507–514
Chambers SK, Girgis A, Occhipinti S, Hutchison S, Turner J, Morris B et al (2012) Psychological distress and unmet supportive care needs in cancer patients and carers who contact cancer helplines. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 21(2):213–223
Eggins R, Fowler H, Cameron J, Aitken JF, Youl P, Turrell G et al (2022) Supportive care needs and psychosocial outcomes of rural versus urban women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 31(11):1951–1957
Gough K, Bergin RJ, Drosdowsky A, Aranda S, Mileshkin L, Jackson M et al (2022) Women with gynaecological cancer awaiting radiotherapy: self-reported wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function, and supportive care needs. Gynecol Oncol 167(1):42–50
Halkett GKB, Lobb EA, Rogers MM, Shaw T, Long AP, Wheeler HR et al (2015) Predictors of distress and poorer quality of life in high grade glioma patients. Patient Educ Couns 98(4):525–532
Hall AE, Boyes AW, Bowman J, Walsh RA, James EL, Girgis A (2012) Young adult cancer survivors’ psychosocial well-being: a cross-sectional study assessing quality of life, unmet needs, and health behaviors. Support Care Cancer 20(6):1333–1341
Hyde MK, Newton RU, Galvão DA, Gardiner RA, Occhipinti S, Lowe A et al (2017) Men’s help-seeking in the first year after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. European journal of cancer care 26(2)
Kusters I, Williams M, Obermair A, Janda M (2015) Women with self-reported lower limb lymphedema after treatment for gynecological cancers: are they more likely to self-report psychosocial symptoms and less likely to use services? Journal of Community and Supportive. Oncology. 13(2):55–61
McDowell ME, Occhipinti S, Ferguson M, Dunn J, Chambers SK (2010) Predictors of change in unmet supportive care needs in cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 19(5):508–516
Oberoi D, White VM, Seymour JF, Miles Prince H, Harrison S, Jefford M et al (2017) The influence of unmet supportive care needs on anxiety and depression during cancer treatment and beyond: a longitudinal study of survivors of haematological cancers. Support Care Cancer 25(11):3447–3456
Amatya B, Khan F, Ng L, Galea M (2014) Supportive care needs following cancer treatment: a comparison of breast and brain cancer in an Australian cohort. ISRN Rehabilitation 2014:1–10
Brennan ME, Butow P, Spillane AJ, Boyle F (2016) Patient-reported quality of life, unmet needs and care coordination outcomes: moving toward targeted breast cancer survivorship care planning. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 12(2):e323–e331
Khan F, Amatya B (2013) Factors associated with long-term functional outcomes, psychological sequelae and quality of life in persons after primary brain tumour. J Neuro-Oncol 111(3):355–366
Molassiotis A, Yates P, Li Q, So WKW, Pongthavornkamol K, Pittayapan P et al (2017) Mapping unmet supportive care needs, quality-of-life perceptions and current symptoms in cancer survivors across the Asia-Pacific region: results from the International STEP Study. Ann Oncol 28(10):2552–2558
Rowlands IJ, Janda M, McKinnon L, Webb PM, Beesley VL, Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study G (2015) Prevalence, predictors, and correlates of supportive care needs among women 3-5 years after a diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Support Care Cancer 23(5):1205–1214
Smith AB, King M, Butow P, Luckett T, Grimison P, Toner GC et al (2013) The prevalence and correlates of supportive care needs in testicular cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study. Psychooncology. 22(11):2557–2564
Stafford L, Judd F (2011) Long-term quality of life in Australian women previously diagnosed with gynaecologic cancer. Support Care Cancer 19(12):2047–2056
Urbaniec OA, Collins K, Denson LA, Whitford HS (2011) Gynecological cancer survivors: assessment of psychological distress and unmet supportive care needs. J Psychosoc Oncol 29(5):534–551
Vuksanovic D, Sanmugarajah J, Lunn D, Sawhney R, Eu K, Liang R (2021) Unmet needs in breast cancer survivors are common, and multidisciplinary care is underutilised: the Survivorship Needs Assessment Project. Breast Cancer 28(2):289–297
Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Sanson-Fisher RW, Campbell HS, Bradstock K, Carey ML et al (2018) Unmet supportive care needs of haematological cancer survivors: rural versus urban residents. Ann Hematol 97(7):1283–1292
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly acknowledge the contribution of Mrs. Shannon Brown, research librarian at Flinders University, for developing the extensive search strategy employed.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions This study was funded under the National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence grant (1135048).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Funding for this project was obtained by J.K.
J.K., J.R. and L.C.E. conceptualised the study.
J.R., L.C.E. and J.J. were involved in title and abstract screening.
J.R. and J.J. completed data extraction.
All authors contributed to the data analysis and writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval statement
No ethics approval was needed for this study.
Patient consent statement
NA.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Jackie Roseleur and Laura Catherine Edney are co-first authors
Supplementary information
ESM 1:
(DOCX 59.9 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Roseleur, J., Edney, L.C., Jung, J. et al. Prevalence of unmet supportive care needs reported by individuals ever diagnosed with cancer in Australia: a systematic review to support service prioritisation. Support Care Cancer 31, 676 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08146-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-08146-y