Background/Objectives: In recent years, the number of cancer survivors has increased. Psychological difficulties or disorders are frequent during survivorship (e.g., fear of cancer recurrence, anxiety, depression, and insomnia). Various interventions have been developed to address survivors’ specific psychosocial needs. This rapid scoping review aimed to define the interventions that have been developed for adult cancer survivors by describing (1) the type of intervention, (2) their measured psychosocial outcome variables, and (3) participants’ main characteristics. Methods: PubMed was searched for articles published between 2020 and 2025. The search strategy combined terms related to cancer survivorship, psychosocial outcomes, and interventions. Titles and abstracts were screened, and data were extracted using a structured form specifying study type, population, intervention, and outcome characteristics. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. Results: Out of 1743 screened studies, 80 were included (67 studies, 13 systematic reviews/meta-analyses), representing approximately 7880 cancer survivors (from the n = 67). Nearly 45% of included studies were conducted in the United States, and most interventions were developed for breast cancer survivors (38.8%) or included a majority of female participants. Physical activity (22.39%), psychoeducation (17.9%), and cognitive behavioural therapy (16.4%) were the most common intervention types. About a third incorporated eHealth or telehealth. Two-thirds of studies (65.7%) reported predominantly positive effects on psychosocial outcomes. Few interventions included cultural adaptations and targeted minority or socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Conclusions: Most interventions for cancer survivors targeted breast cancer, female survivors in high-income countries. Developing and implementing culturally adapted and cost-efficient interventions, particularly for underrepresented survivor groups, remains a priority for future research and implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Müller et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: