Scoping review maps existing research on community-based rehabilitation outcomes for cancer survivors, highlighting research gaps.
Objective To map existing research on community‐based multidimensional cancer rehabilitation, specifically relating to characteristics of studies, participants, intervention formats, outcomes, and outcome measures. Data Sources Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases in May 2022 and updated in February/March 2024. Review Methods The review followed the methodological guidance for scoping reviews developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We considered evidence from primary research, knowledge syntheses, and research protocols, and imposed no limits on study design. All authors screened independently for eligibility, using a standardized template for data extraction. We used descriptive statistics and presented the results in tables and narrative summaries. Results The search retrieved 6424 records, of which 104 were selected for full‐text screening. Twelve publications were included in the review, representing nine unique rehabilitation interventions. The included studies comprised 594 participants with a mean age of 59.6 years. The cancer types were mixed with an overrepresentation of breast and prostate cancer. Seven of the publications were feasibility, pilot, protocol, or intervention development studies, and only two were randomized controlled trials. Physical activity/exercise was the most common component within physical functioning, and social support/peer support was most common within psychosocial functioning. Sixty‐five tools were used to measure a range of outcomes, the most frequent being health‐related quality of life. Conclusion The findings demonstrate that this field of research is in its infancy in Europe. Improving homogeneity in outcomes and outcome measures would enhance comparisons and pooling of results in future research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmedzai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: