Palliative care experiences of adult cancer patients from ethnocultural groups: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Abstract
Review question/objective The objective of this review is to synthesize the best available evidence on palliative care experiences of adult cancer patients from ethnocultural groups.More specifically, this systematic review seeks to answer the following questions:1. What are the palliative care experiences of adult cancer patients from diverse ethnocultural groups?2. What meanings do adult patients with cancer from diverse ethnocultural groups assign to their experiences with palliative care? Background Globally, over 20.4 million people need palliative care services annually. The majority of these people (19 million) are adults, with 34% of them being patients diagnosed with cancer. With the current increase in the aging population, especially in developed countries, the number of adults requiring palliative care is expected to rise. Furthermore, how palliative care is offered and received continues to be shaped by culture and ethnicity. Likewise, culture and ethnicity influence how palliative care patients experience diseases like cancer, and seek and utilize palliative care services. Also, healthcare providers sometimes find it challenging to address the palliative care needs of patients from different ethnocultural groups. Sometimes these challenges are believed to be due to cultural incompetence of the care provider. When palliative care patients and their providers differ in their perception of care needs and how to address them, negative palliative care experiences are…
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?
Overreliance on consultative design methods risks capturing only surface-level usability preferences while overlooking systemic challenges such as workflow misalignments, caregiver burdens, or sociotechnical barriers.
“Overreliance on consultative design methods risks capturing only surface-level usability preferences while overlooking systemic challenges such as workflow misalignments, caregiver burdens, or sociotechnical barriers [53].”
From User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [53]
Cites
Armes, J., Crowe, M., Colbourne, L., Morgan, H., Murrells, T., Oakley, C., Palmer, N., Ream, E., Young, A., & Richardson, A. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.22.5151 · Cited by 587 · see citing works
Husson, O., Mols, F., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2011) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq413 · Cited by 535 · see citing works
Communicating prognosis in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. M., Dimitry, S., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2005) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi211 · Cited by 504 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review
Kheirinejad, S., White, B. M., Kheirkhah Rahimabad, P., Zink, J. A., Hashtarkhani, S., Kumsa, F. A., Rashid, R., Chinthala, L., Brett, C. L., Davis, R. L., et al. (2026) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/87686
“Overreliance on consultative design methods risks capturing only surface-level usability preferences while overlooking systemic challenges such as workflow misalignments, caregiver burdens, or sociotechnical barriers [53].”
- Authors
- Busolo, D., & Woodgate, R.
- Affiliations
- Queen's University (CA)
- Venue
- JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-111
- ISSN
- 2202-4433 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2138265417
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 0.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
- Keywords
- palliative care, cancer patients, ethnocultural groups, patient experience, ethnicity, cultural competence, cultural competence training, cultural barriers to care, patient-provider communication, end-of-life care, palliative care utilization, cultural diversity in health care
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Culture, Decision Making, Ethnicity, Family, Humans, Neoplasms, Pain, Palliative Care, Quality of Life, Religion, Social Support, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress, Psychological, Terminal Care, United States, Hospice Care, 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
