Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective This scoping review aimed to categorize nonpharmacological interventions targeted at chemotherapy‐induced skin toxicities, specifically implemented by nurses in clinical settings. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ichushi‐Web from database inception to April 3, 2026. Two independent reviewers analyzed the study selection, data extraction, and classification of dermatologic toxicity types and intervention modalities. Results Of the 1499 studies that were screened, 48 met the inclusion criteria. The nonpharmacological interventions targeted five primary skin toxicities: 19 for alopecia, 15 for hand–foot syndrome (HFS)/palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia, 7 for acneiform rash, 6 for onychosis and nail discoloration, and 2 for dry skin. The interventions included scalp cooling, frozen gloves/socks, herbal decoctions, topical agents, remote symptom monitoring, and self‐care education via skincare diaries. Nonpharmacological interventions for alopecia and HFS were predominant, whereas research on other chemotherapy‐induced skin toxicities, including periungual inflammation and skin dryness, was limited. Conclusions There are diverse nonpharmacological interventions for chemotherapy‐induced skin toxicities. Few studies have explored structured patient self‐care education, despite its crucial role in ensuring intervention adherence. Further research on less‐studied conditions and the role of nurses in implementing these interventions is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niino et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: