Living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: a qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesis.

PURPOSE: To identify the qualitative evidence on the experience of cancer and comorbid illness from the perspective of patients, carers and health care professionals to identify psycho-social support needs, experience of health care, and to highlight areas where more research is needed. METHODS: A qualitative systematic review following PRISMA guidance. Relevant research databases were searched using an exhaustive list of search terms. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and discussed variations. Included articles were subject to quality appraisal before data extraction of article characteristics and findings. Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis of extracted findings was undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles were included in the review, covering a range of cancer types and comorbid conditions; with varying time since cancer diagnosis and apparent severity of disease for both cancer and other conditions. The majority of studies were published after 2010 and in high income countries. Few studies focused exclusively on the experience of living with comorbid conditions alongside cancer; such that evidence was limited. Key themes identified included the interaction between cancer and comorbid conditions, symptom experience, illness identities and ageing, self-management and the role of primary and secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to a better understanding of the complex experience of cancer and comorbidity, the review will combine with research prioritisation work with consumers to inform an interview study with the defined patient group. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Expanding this evidence base will help to illuminate developing models of cancer patient-centred follow-up care for the large proportion of patients with comorbid conditions.

Adjustment and support needs of glioma patients and their relatives: serial interviews.

OBJECTIVE: To understand factors influencing the process of adjustment to a diagnosis of glioma. METHODS: Twenty-six patients and 23 relatives took part in 80 in-depth qualitative interviews conducted at five key stages: before formal diagnosis, at start of treatment, on completion of treatment, 6 months post treatment, and post bereavement. RESULTS: High levels of distress were reported, particularly preceding and following diagnosis. Many participants described lack of specific information in the early part of their illness and a lack of clarity about what was wrong and what was going to happen next. They often desired more procedural information, as well as information about their condition and treatments available, although there was variation in the timing of when people were ready to hear this. Receiving reassurance and support was essential to patients and their relatives to help them come to terms with their illness. This need was particularly acute during the early phase of the illness when distress and uncertainty were at a peak and lessened over time as people adjusted to their illness. CONCLUSIONS: Offering suitable information about what to expect early and frequently in a supportive way is much appreciated by patients. There is an important balance between ensuring that patients and their families are fully informed and fostering adaptive coping that allows for hope.

Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups.

BACKGROUND: Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK METHODS: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis. RESULTS: Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually. A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy. Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research. DISCUSSION: By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare. This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole. Both the method and the model should be evaluated in other contexts.