Cited by 34Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and careFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units

Care for the Cancer Caregiver: a Qualitative Study of Facilitators and Barriers to Caregiver Integration and Support

Open access
Reblin, Maija, Ketcher, Dana, Vadaparampil, Susan T.·2022·Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract

Informal family caregivers are critically important for patient care throughout the cancer care trajectory. Family-centered care, which seeks to integrate family members as experts, is a framework that values partnerships with family members and can benefit both the physical and psychosocial health of patients. However, little standardization or system-level implementation of family-centered care models to integrate and support family caregivers have emerged in adult oncology care settings in the USA. To better understand potential barriers and facilitators to the integration and support of family caregivers in cancer care settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with informal family caregivers (n = 12) and members of the cancer center leadership team and health care providers (n = 11) at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. We frame our results using the social ecological model and identified facilitators and barriers at the individual, interpersonal, and system level. While caregivers and team members were able to identify facilitators and barriers at the individual (i.e., caregivers are motivated to learn, but overwhelmed and focused only on the patient) and interpersonal levels (i.e., relationships are a valuable resource, but communication is sometimes challenging), team members were more likely to identify system-level barriers (i.e., constraints within the larger healthcare structure). To implement family-centered care in cancer settings, it is incumbent on the healthcare system to pursue standardization of communication, programs that facilitate family integration and support, and advocate for policy change. Barriers must be addressed at multiple levels to provide inclusive and supportive environments for all patients and their families.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13187-021-02001-6

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Caregivers often cannot access services due to constraints such as time, finances, travel, patient-focused view, lack of resources, negative perceptions of mental health professionals and services, and stigma avoidance.

    “caregivers often cannot access services due to a variety of constraints (e.g., time, finances, travel, patient-focused view, lack of resources, negative perceptions of mental health professionals and services, stigma avoidance) [23–25].”

    From It is time to address fear of cancer recurrence in family caregivers: protocol for the feasibility and acceptability of a randomized pilot study of the online version of the Family Caregiver–Fear Of Recurrence Therapy (FC-FORT) (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results sections on patient focus and resource mismatch describe caregivers prioritizing patients, difficulty fitting services into treatment schedules, and insufficient support resources. The Discussion says caregivers often went without formal support. The passages do not establish travel costs, caregivers’ financial constraints, negative perceptions of mental health professionals or services, or stigma avoidance as barriers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 34

Authors
Reblin, M., Ketcher, D., & Vadaparampil, S. T.
Affiliations
Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Reblin, Maija
Venue
Journal of Cancer Education
Published
2021-03-30
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
1634-1640
ISSN
  • 0885-8195 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-0154
OpenAlex
W3142973144
Cited by
34
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2
FWCI
7.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cancer Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (5T32CA090314-15)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Keywords
family caregivers, cancer care, family-centered care, caregiver support, barriers and facilitators, socio-ecological model, caregiver communication, comprehensive cancer center, caregiver burden
MeSH terms
Adult, Communication, Family, Humans, Neoplasms, Caregivers, Qualitative Research

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