Cited by 286Cancer survivorship and carePalliative and Oncologic CareHealth Policy Implementation Science

Patient and health professional's perceived barriers to the delivery of psychosocial care to adults with cancer: a systematic review

Dilworth, Sophie, Higgins, Isabel, Parker, Vicki, Kelly, Brian, Turner, Jane·2014·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Objective: To explore the barriers experienced and perceived by health professionals and patients in the delivery of psychosocial care to adults with cancer. Methods: Systematic searches were undertaken using the PsychInfo, Medline and CINAHL electronic databases, up to October 2013. Research reporting health professional or patient experiences and perceptions of barriers to psychosocial care are included in the review. The systematic review includes studies that have non‐experimental, exploratory and observational designs, as is appropriate to answer the review question. Included studies were critically appraised. The results of individual quantitative studies were aggregated. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the qualitative results. Results: Twenty‐five papers met the pre‐specified inclusion criteria for the final review. The most commonly perceived barrier for patients relates to receiving adequate support from elsewhere and a lack of perceived need for psychosocial care. Health professionals report barriers at an organisational level most frequently followed by cultural and then individual clinician‐related barriers. Conclusions: Barriers exist on a variety of levels. People with cancer need clear appropriate information and communication about psychosocial services, including information about the role of psychosocial care in addition to existing supports. Interventions that target the complex interplay of individual, organisational and cultural factors need to be developed. Strategies that improve health professional communication skills, identify clear referral pathways, improve acceptability of interventions and clearly identify the need for services could address many of the barriers identified in this review. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.3474

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 85 · Cited by 286

Authors
Dilworth, S., Higgins, I., Parker, V., Kelly, B., & Turner, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Hunter New England Local Health District (AU)
  • John Hunter Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Dilworth, Sophie
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-02-11
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
601-612
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W1688725840
Cited by
286
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
psychosocial care, cancer, barriers to care, patient perspectives, health professional perceptions, organizational barriers, cultural barriers, referral pathways, psychosocial services, communication skills, acceptability of interventions
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Mental Health Services, Neoplasms, Patient Acceptance of Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review