Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective To synthesize qualitative evidence on psychological resilience-related experiences among women with breast cancer. Methods This qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) meta-aggregation approach. Nine databases, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, were searched from inception to 10 June 2026. Backward and forward citation searching was also conducted. Eligible studies were primary qualitative studies or qualitative components of mixed-methods studies. Methodological quality was appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, and confidence in the synthesized findings was assessed using the Confidence in the Output of Qualitative Research Synthesis (ConQual) approach. Results From 9 studies involving 151 women, 70 findings were extracted; 68 were aggregated into 16 categories, and 2 Not Supported findings were excluded. Five synthesized findings were generated: breast cancer-related challenges; personal responses to illness; experiences of support; religious faith and cultural traditions; and personal values and views of self. ConQual confidence was Moderate for two synthesized findings and Low for three. Conclusions Psychological resilience-related experiences were described in relation to illness and life circumstances, personal responses, available support, and valued beliefs and roles; adaptation-related experiences were reported alongside continuing psychosocial difficulties and vulnerability. The findings may inform individualized assessment and supportive care in oncology practice. With Moderate or Low ConQual ratings, interpretation and application should consider clinical and cultural contexts. Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD420251273217.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: