A mixed methods systematic review of cancer treatment decision-making in vulnerable populations
A mixed methods systematic review of cancer treatment decision-making in vulnerable populations
Introduction: vulnerable cancer patients are at risk of making uninformed treatment decisions. Most patient decision aids (PtDAs) have been developed for high-income country (HIC) populations, with limited testing or adaptation for use in vulnerable populations, either contextually or geographically. This review aimed to understand how PtDAs address the treatment decision-making needs of vulnerable cancer patients.
Methods: we conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of RCTs and other effectiveness studies of PtDAs as well as qualitative studies on the treatment decision-making experiences of vulnerable adults (≥18 years) with cancer. Eight databases were searched. Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened for eligible studies and appraised their methodological quality. Qualitative and quantitative findings were synthesized separately and then integrated to identify gaps and alignments between PtDA design and patient-reported decision support needs.
Results: twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria (14 quantitative, 11 qualitative, and one mixed method). Qualitative synthesis showed that vulnerable patients experienced high emotional and psychosocial burdens, preferred in-person support, and often encountered mismatches between their preferred and actual decision-making roles. The narrative synthesis of quantitative studies showed that most PtDAs improved knowledge (5/7 studies) and reduced decisional conflict (6/7), while their effects on shared decision-making were mixed (3/5).
Discussion: PtDAs that provided clear, concise information and were delivered face-to-face better addressed the needs of vulnerable patients than self-administered tools. Although patients reported significant emotional and psychosocial burdens, no PtDAs included structured counselling.
Practice implications: patient decision aids should be tailored to meet the informational, emotional, and role-support needs of vulnerable cancer patients, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
Low to Middle income Countries, Mixed Method Review, Oncology, Patient treatment decision aids, Vulnerable persons, Low to middle income countries, Mixed method review
Blanchard, Charmaine L.
6bb60456-5db4-4990-b035-ddcd5135c9ca
McInerney, Patricia
51e27636-551f-4efa-bcff-ccdb205f21df
Joffe, Maureen
3ed05269-5b6b-4f1c-a46a-df4f249280bc
Patel, Moosa
c96b32b0-df1b-435e-8124-0b632c0d2e22
Prigerson, Holly G.
0ffa63e1-5aee-4700-ad4a-8fcca991b405
Norris, Shane
1d346f1b-6d5f-4bca-ac87-7589851b75a4
21 January 2026
Blanchard, Charmaine L.
6bb60456-5db4-4990-b035-ddcd5135c9ca
McInerney, Patricia
51e27636-551f-4efa-bcff-ccdb205f21df
Joffe, Maureen
3ed05269-5b6b-4f1c-a46a-df4f249280bc
Patel, Moosa
c96b32b0-df1b-435e-8124-0b632c0d2e22
Prigerson, Holly G.
0ffa63e1-5aee-4700-ad4a-8fcca991b405
Norris, Shane
1d346f1b-6d5f-4bca-ac87-7589851b75a4
Blanchard, Charmaine L., McInerney, Patricia, Joffe, Maureen, Patel, Moosa, Prigerson, Holly G. and Norris, Shane
(2026)
A mixed methods systematic review of cancer treatment decision-making in vulnerable populations.
Patient Education and Counseling, 145, [109491].
(doi:10.1016/j.pec.2026.109491).
Abstract
Introduction: vulnerable cancer patients are at risk of making uninformed treatment decisions. Most patient decision aids (PtDAs) have been developed for high-income country (HIC) populations, with limited testing or adaptation for use in vulnerable populations, either contextually or geographically. This review aimed to understand how PtDAs address the treatment decision-making needs of vulnerable cancer patients.
Methods: we conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of RCTs and other effectiveness studies of PtDAs as well as qualitative studies on the treatment decision-making experiences of vulnerable adults (≥18 years) with cancer. Eight databases were searched. Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened for eligible studies and appraised their methodological quality. Qualitative and quantitative findings were synthesized separately and then integrated to identify gaps and alignments between PtDA design and patient-reported decision support needs.
Results: twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria (14 quantitative, 11 qualitative, and one mixed method). Qualitative synthesis showed that vulnerable patients experienced high emotional and psychosocial burdens, preferred in-person support, and often encountered mismatches between their preferred and actual decision-making roles. The narrative synthesis of quantitative studies showed that most PtDAs improved knowledge (5/7 studies) and reduced decisional conflict (6/7), while their effects on shared decision-making were mixed (3/5).
Discussion: PtDAs that provided clear, concise information and were delivered face-to-face better addressed the needs of vulnerable patients than self-administered tools. Although patients reported significant emotional and psychosocial burdens, no PtDAs included structured counselling.
Practice implications: patient decision aids should be tailored to meet the informational, emotional, and role-support needs of vulnerable cancer patients, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
Text
1-s2.0-S0738399126000248-main
- Version of Record
More information
Submitted date: 8 November 2024
Accepted/In Press date: 15 January 2026
e-pub ahead of print date: 16 January 2026
Published date: 21 January 2026
Keywords:
Low to Middle income Countries, Mixed Method Review, Oncology, Patient treatment decision aids, Vulnerable persons, Low to middle income countries, Mixed method review
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 509638
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/509638
ISSN: 0738-3991
PURE UUID: d5bb7c97-1b6b-4be3-b283-77dbcd150cba
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 27 Feb 2026 17:40
Last modified: 07 Mar 2026 04:01
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Charmaine L. Blanchard
Author:
Patricia McInerney
Author:
Maureen Joffe
Author:
Moosa Patel
Author:
Holly G. Prigerson
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics