Patient and health professional's perceived barriers to the delivery of psychosocial care to adults with cancer: a systematic review
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 e-mental health intervention meets the demands and requirements of younger patients with cancer.
“the e-mental health intervention meets their demands and requirements.”
Younger patients with cancer generally report more unmet needs and are less likely to utilise psycho-oncological services.
“Younger patients with cancer generally report more unmet needs and utilise less likely psycho-oncological services61”
Some burdened patients do not receive psycho-oncological support due to barriers including not being screened for distress, limited resources, and low accessibility, especially in rural areas.
“Nevertheless, some burdened patients do not receive psycho-oncological support due to various barriers, including not being screened for distress, limited resources and low accessibility, especially in rural areas (4–6).”
Perceived stigma, preference for self-help, and perception that distress is not severe enough are potential reasons for not seeking psychological support.
“Potential reasons for not seeking psychological support previously identified are perceived stigma, but also a preference for self-help or the perception the experienced distress is not severe enough in spite of reporting high distress (4, 8).”
Some patients do not utilize available psycho-oncological support despite high psychological distress.
“At the same time, some patients do not utilize the support available despite high psychological distress (4, 7).”
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