A protocol for an updated and expanded systematic mixed studies review of fear of cancer recurrence in families and caregivers of adults diagnosed with cancer

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is reportedly common, persistent, associated with significant morbidity and often higher in cancer caregivers than cancer patients. This review will summarise empirical research on FCR to understand its prevalence, severity, correlates, course and impact in families and caregivers of adults diagnosed with cancer, and identify tested interventions that reduce its effects.

Methods

This review will include peer-reviewed, empirical, qualitative and/or quantitative studies on fear, worry or concern of patients’ cancer returning or progressing among adult family members or caregivers of the cancer patient. It will exclude records reporting no original empirical research on FCR. We will search CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses GLOBAL from 1997 onwards. Pairs of reviewers will conduct independent screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised studies, the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Nonrandomized Studies and the questions for qualitative studies in the mixed methods appraisal tool. We will conduct a narrative synthesis of quantitative studies and a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

Discussion

This review will provide further clarity on the prevalence and severity of FCR in families and caregivers and differences by caregiver and care recipient demographic and medical characteristics. Any intervention studies located may indicate therapies or treatments that could reduce FCR in families and caregivers. Findings are expected to provide guidance for individuals and organisations working to manage FCR in families and caregivers of those with cancer.

Systematic review registration

This protocol will be registered with PROSPERO after peer-review.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0795-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 14

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity.

Soo Young Kim, Ji Eun Park, Yoon Lee … (2013)

To develop and validate a new risk-of-bias tool for nonrandomized studies (NRSs). We developed the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS). A validation process with 39 NRSs examined the reliability (interrater agreement), validity (the degree of correlation between the overall assessments of RoBANS and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies [MINORS], obtained by plotting the overall risk of bias relative to effect size and funding source), face validity with eight experts, and completion time for the RoBANS approach. RoBANS contains six domains: the selection of participants, confounding variables, the measurement of exposure, the blinding of the outcome assessments, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. The interrater agreement of the RoBANS tool except the measurement of exposure and selective outcome reporting domains ranged from fair to substantial. There was a moderate correlation between the overall risks of bias determined using RoBANS and MINORS. The observed differences in effect sizes and funding sources among the assessed studies were not correlated with the overall risk of bias in these studies. The mean time required to complete RoBANS was approximately 10 min. The external experts who were interviewed evaluated RoBANS as a "fair" assessment tool. RoBANS shows moderate reliability, promising feasibility, and validity. The further refinement of this tool and larger validation studies are required. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 413 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Testing Methodological Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Smoke Alarm Ownership and Function

Essie Rodgers, A Sowden, M. Petticrew … (2009)

0 comments Cited 116 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Fear of cancer recurrence: a systematic literature review of self-report measures.

Carolyn Gotay, Belinda Thewes, P Butow … (2012)

Prior research has shown that many cancer survivors experience ongoing fears of cancer recurrence (FCR) and that this chronic uncertainty of health status during and after cancer treatment can be a significant psychological burden. The field of research on FCR is an emerging area of investigation in the cancer survivorship literature, and several standardised instruments for its assessment have been developed. This review aims to identify all available FCR-specific questionnaires and subscales and critically appraise their properties. A systematic review was undertaken to identify instruments measuring FCR. Relevant studies were identified via Medline (1950-2010), CINAHL (1982-2010), PsycINFO (1967-2010) and AMED (1985-2010) databases, reference lists of articles and reviews, grey literature databases and consultation with experts in the field. The Medical Outcomes Trust criteria were used to examine the psychometric properties of the questionnaires. A total of 20 relevant multi-item measures were identified. The majority of instruments have demonstrated reliability and preliminary evidence of validity. Relatively few brief measures (2-10 items) were found to have comprehensive validation and reliability data available. Several valid and reliable longer measures (>10 items) are available. Three have developed short forms that may prove useful as screening tools. This analysis indicated that further refinement and validation of existing instruments is required. Valid and reliable instruments are needed for both research and clinical care. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 79 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Stuart Leske: theleskes@outlook.com.au

Allan Ben Smith: ben.smith@unsw.edu.au

Sylvie D. Lambert: sylvie.lambert@mcgill.ca

Afaf Girgis:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4101-4006

afaf.girgis@unsw.edu.au

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Syst Rev

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Syst Rev

Title: Systematic Reviews

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 2046-4053

Publication date (Electronic): 31 August 2018

Publication date PMC-release: 31 August 2018

Publication date Collection: 2018

Volume: 7

Electronic Location Identifier: 134

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.429098.e, Psycho-oncology Research Group, Centre for Oncology Education and Research Translation (CONCERT), , Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, ; Liverpool, Australia

[2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 4902 0432, GRID grid.1005.4, South Western Sydney Clinical School, , The University of New South Wales, ; Liverpool, Australia

[3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, GRID grid.14709.3b, Ingram School of Nursing, , McGill University, ; Montreal, Quebec Canada

[4 ]St. Mary’s Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec Canada

Author information

Afaf Girgis http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4101-4006

Article

Publisher ID: 795

DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0795-5

PMC ID: 6119342

PubMed ID: 30170619

SO-VID: 0ec45148-5481-414a-8551-13f331fb19d9

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

History

Date received : 1 February 2018

Date accepted : 7 August 2018

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001171, Cancer Institute NSW;

Award ID: 13/TRC/1–01

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health

Keywords: systematic review,fear of cancer recurrence,anxiety,concern,worry,recurrence,progression,caregivers,families

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health

Keywords: systematic review, fear of cancer recurrence, anxiety, concern, worry, recurrence, progression, caregivers, families

A protocol for an updated and expanded systematic mixed studies review of fear of cancer recurrence in families and caregivers of adults diagnosed with cancer

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Electronic supplementary material

Related collections

Global Health Next Generation Network

Most cited references 14

Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity.

Testing Methodological Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Smoke Alarm Ownership and Function

Fear of cancer recurrence: a systematic literature review of self-report measures.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 160

Cited by 2

Most referenced authors 194