BACKGROUND: Cancer-related pain is a global health-related problem associated with functional impairment, anxiety, depression, and reduced quality of life. The use of educational interventions for patients and their caregivers has been proposed as a promising tool for overcoming pain in cancer. The aim of this study was to summarize by means of a standardized methodological systematic revision the actual pain education intervention used in cancer patients and their caregivers and to analyze its effects on pain.
METHODS: A search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cinhal from their inception to September 2022. Randomized controlled trials which included pain education interventions were identified. Two reviewers performed independent data extraction and methodologic quality assessments of these studies.
RESULTS: A total of seven studies was included in the study. The meta-analysis showed that pain education interventions have a significant effect on the worst pain; however, there was no effect on average pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Pain education interventions addressed to patients and their caregivers could have positive effects on cancer-related pain. It is recommended that a minimum of three sessions of about one hour\'s duration be held once a week. Further research needs to be carried out and analyzed on the effects over the long term. Pain education interventions show positive results in improving pain in cancer patients regardless of etiology or extent of the cancer. Studies with better methodological quality should be carried out to address specific components related to education interventions.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is commonly experienced by patients with cancer during treatment, and 35% of patients experience cognitive impairment after treatment completion. Impairments in memory, attention, executive functioning, and information processing speed are most reported and often negatively impact daily functioning and quality of life (QoL). Despite the large scale of reports, this adverse side effect is underinvestigated across common cancer types, and there is a lack of insight into the CRCI experience.
OBJECTIVE: This qualitative synthesis aims to explore the evidence in relation to the experience of CRCI across common cancers. It also aims to understand the prevalence of CRCI across various cancer types, cognitive domains, and its impact on QoL and functional ability.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of databases, including PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus, will be conducted. A total of 2 independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, followed by full-text screening. A third reviewer will resolve any arising conflicts in the process of data screening and inclusion. Subsequently, data extraction and quality assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool will be conducted. The results will be analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: This review is part of a PhD program funded in January 2023. The review commenced in June 2023, and data analysis is currently in progress. The qualitative synthesis will explore the experiences of CRCI across common cancers. The included studies are expected to report on numerous cancer types such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, and lung cancer. The included study types are most likely to be interviews, focus groups, and surveys with qualitative components.
CONCLUSIONS: This protocol highlights the need for a qualitative synthesis that will explore the experience of CRCI across common cancer types. It will provide valuable insight into the lived experience of CRCI and the cognitive domains that may be disproportionately affected. There is a growing demand for further management interventions and clinically tested treatments of CRCI and the qualitative exploration of patient experience is crucial for their development. This qualitative synthesis will inform future developments and will contribute to improving QoL after cancer.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/56888.

UNASSIGNED: To explore the existing research on sexual health experiences of sexual and gender minority women (SGMW) post-curative cancer treatment.
UNASSIGNED: This scoping review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Four articles that focused on sexual health experiences of SGMW post-curative cancer treatment were included.
UNASSIGNED: Four themes were identified: (a) sexual function; (b) sexual orientation and gender identity, including disclosure and health care provider reactions; (c) relationship dynamics, such as relationship status and the quality of romantic relationships; and (d) body image.
UNASSIGNED: The findings underscore substantial challenges faced by SGMW cancer survivors in achieving optimal sexual well-being, impacting their access to post-treatment care. This study advocates for more expansive research efforts involving diverse participant cohorts, extending beyond breast cancer, to gain deeper insights into these critical issues.

BACKGROUND: Education plays a pivotal role in the care of oncological patients, reducing health costs, hospital readmission, and disease relapses. Education can be supportive in achieving multiple outcomes, improving symptom control and quality of life. A new approach is emerging in patient education: gamification. Gamification was defined as the \"use of game elements in non-game contexts\", including the application of games in serious contexts. The aim of this review is to explore the use of gamification in the oncology setting.
METHODS: A systematic scoping review was conducted in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases using the JBI guidelines.
RESULTS: The 13 included reports were critically appraised by two reviewers independently. It seems that gamification could be effective both in prevention and cancer treatments. Gamification also seems to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting management, quality of life, and reduced anxiety levels in different cancer groups. Moreover, gamification seems effective in improving self-care in cancer patients, regardless of gender, age, and ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS: Gamification improves patient engagement and biopsychosocial outcomes and could represent a valid approach to cancer patient education; however, it is not a substitute for healthcare professionals, who remain the leaders in the education process.

OBJECTIVE: Pain post-treatment is a debilitating symptom in the growing population of cancer survivors. While physical activity is an integral part of pain management, low levels of physical activity are often observed in this population. The aim of this systematic review is to gain insight into the barriers and facilitators to physical activity in cancer survivors afflicted with pain.
METHODS: In December 2021, a systematic search was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science. All studies exploring barriers and/or facilitators to physical activity in cancer survivors with pain were included. The methodological quality of the evidence was appraised with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (version 2018).
RESULTS: Six articles were included. Current literature was limited and mostly focused on female breast cancer survivors. The identified barriers and facilitators could be categorized into six different domains: the logistical, symptoms, cognitive, clinical, social, and knowledge domain. The barrier of pain was reported as a barrier on its own that is closely linked to other barriers in this specific population.
CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and facilitators to physical activity were categorized in six different domains. The barrier of pain distinguishes itself and brings along additional obstacles such as anxiety, fear, and avoidance behavior. Current evidence is limited and focuses mostly on female breast cancer survivors. Further research in larger cohorts representing various subsets of cancer survivors with pain is warranted, as well as studies that implement these insights in physical activity interventions.

Globally, both cancer incidence and survival are increasing. Early cancer detection and improved treatment means many people with cancer will survive for ten or more years following diagnosis. Multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic conditions, is up to three times higher in people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC) compared to the general population. This scoping review summarises the research evidence on the association between cancer and multimorbidity in people LWBC. It explores five key domains in people LWBC: 1) prevalence of multimorbidity, 2) association between ethnicity and socio-economic status (SES) and multimorbidity, 3) association between health status and multimorbidity, 4) adverse health consequences of cancer and related treatments, and 5) whether being a cancer survivor impacts treatment received for multimorbidity. It focuses on ten common cancers with high survival rates: prostate, breast, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, bowel/colorectal, kidney, head and neck, bladder, leukaemia, uterine and myeloma. A search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO and Web of Science databases identified 9,460 articles, 115 of which met the inclusion criteria. Articles were included in the review that involved multimorbidity in adult cancer patients. An evaluation of the evidence was performed, and a summary of findings was generated according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. This review included work from 20 countries, most studies were from the US (44%). The results showed that the most common long-term conditions in people LWBC were: hypertension, heart conditions, depression, COPD, and diabetes. The most reported incident comorbidities after a cancer diagnosis were congestive heart failure, chronic pain, and chronic fatigue. Multimorbidity tended to be higher amongst people LWBC from ethnic minority groups and those with lower SES. Quality of life was poorer in people LWBC with multimorbidity. The review identified the need for a uniform approach to measure multimorbidity in cancer patients across the world. Further research is required to compare multimorbidity before and after a cancer diagnosis, to explore the association of multimorbidity with ethnicity and socio-economic status and to determine whether a cancer diagnosis impacts care received for multimorbidity in people LWBC.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the use of e-cigarettes among cancer survivors, factors associated with their use, and prevalence of e-cigarette use as a quit attempt.
METHODS: We searched five electronic databases until June 2022. Two authors independently selected studies, appraised their quality, and collected data.
RESULTS: Twenty-three publications from eight data sources (national surveys) met our eligibility criteria. The pooled rate of lifetime e-cigarette use among cancer survivors was 15% (95% CI 6-27%); current use was 3% (95% CI 0-8%). Among survivors who currently used traditional cigarettes, 63% (95% CI 57-69%) also used e-cigarettes. The reported rates of weighted lifetime e-cigarette use differed between age groups (18-44 years, up to 46.7%; 45-64, up to 27.2%; ≥65, up to 24.8%). Nine publications reported factors associated with lifetime e-cigarette use (i.e., active use of traditional cigarettes; heavy drinking; poor mental health; younger age; being male, non-Hispanic White, or single; having less than high school education or income ≤$25,000 USD; and living in the South regions of the US or urban areas). E-cigarettes were used as a quit resource by 75% of survivors reporting dual use of electronic and traditional cigarettes (95% CI 63%, 85%).
CONCLUSIONS: More than two-thirds of survivors currently using traditional cigarettes also use e-cigarettes. Higher use rates of e-cigarettes were reported among young cancer survivors compared to older survivors. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of e-cigarettes on long-term health and improve screening of smoking behaviors.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an overview of the prevalence of e-cigarette use and sociodemographic risk factors associated with e-cigarette use among cancer survivors. The findings can assist providers in supporting attempts to quit among cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: The latest systematic review on the prevalence of pain in cancer survivors was published 5 years ago. The current review aims to provide an extended overview on the prevalence of pain, pain mechanisms, pain characteristics, and assessment methods in cancer survivors.
METHODS: A systematic research was conducted on 17th of April 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane looking at studies from 2014 to 2020. Studies had to report pain prevalence rates in cancer survivors with a solid tumor who finished curative treatment at least 3 months ago. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal tool. Characteristics of the included studies, participants and reported pain prevalence rates were extracted. The reported prevalence rates of the individual studies were pooled within a meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were performed to identify possible determinants of the pooled pain prevalence.
RESULTS: After deduplication, 7300 articles were screened, after which 38 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was rated low in 26 articles and moderate in 12 articles. The pooled pain prevalence was 47% (95%CI 39-55), with a heterogeneity of 98.99%.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that nearly half of cancer survivors report pain after completing curative treatment at least 3 months ago. However, substantial unexplained heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation of these results. Meta-regression using cancer type, treatment location, pain measurement, and follow-up time as a covariate could not explain influencing factors explaining the high heterogeneity.

Over the past decade, the number of cancer cases has continued to rise, placing a heavy burden on patients\' families and healthcare systems. Although innovative treatments and drugs have improved patient outcomes, the financial toxicity (FT) of treatment is a growing concern among oncologists. Previous research have examined the impacts of FT on the HRQOL of cancer patients. However, the extent of the association is unclear, given that previous studies vary in the enrolled population, adjustment of confounding factors, and usage of FT assessment tools. To address this gap, the main purpose of this systematic review is to examine the relationship between FT and HRQOL of cancer survivors, and explore any potential factors that may affect this relationship.

UNASSIGNED: Similar to the side effects of cancer treatment, financial toxicity (FT) can affect the quality of life of patients, which has attracted increasing attention in the field of oncology. Despite the fact that the estimated prevalence and risk factors of FT are widely reported, these results have not been synthesized.
UNASSIGNED: This review is aimed to systematically assess the prevalence and risk factors of self-reported FT.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic review and meta-analyses.
UNASSIGNED: A computer search of English literature was conducted using databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, and reference lists of the qualified articles were also included between January 2010 and September 2021. Observational studies that reported the prevalence or risk factors of FT using subjective measures were included.
UNASSIGNED: The systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The risk of bias was assessed by the NIH observational cohort and cross-sectional study quality assessment tool. The data were extracted by two reviewers and listed in a descriptive table for meta-analyses.
UNASSIGNED: In the 22 studies available for meta-analyses of pooled prevalence of FT, the result was estimated to be 45% (95% CI: 38% to 53%, I2 = 97.3%, P < 0.001) based on a random-effects model. The pooled analysis identified 9 potential risk factors of FT (7 in β and 8 in OR): low income (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.72 to 3.24, I2 = 3.1%, P < 0.001), greater annual OOP (β = -4.26, 95% CI: -6.95 to -1.57, I2 = 0%, P = 0.002), younger age (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.56 to 2.54, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001), no private insurance (OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.37, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001), unmarried (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.25, I2 = 53,3%, P < 0.001), nonwhite (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.85, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001), advanced cancer (β = -4.74, 95% CI: -6.90 to -2.57, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001), unemployed (β = -2.90, 95% CI: -5.71 to -0.63, I2 = 75,7%, P < 0.001), more recent diagnosis (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.57, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001).
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review reported a pooled prevalence of self-reported FT of 45%. Low income, greater annual OOP (Out of pocket), younger age, unmarried, unemployed, nonwhite, no private insurance, advanced cancer, and more recent diagnosis constituted risk factors for self-reported FT. The research on risk factors for FT can provide a theoretical basis for medical staff to evaluate and intervene in the FT among cancer survivors.