Skip to main content
PMC home page
Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal logoLink to Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal
. 2018 Feb 1;28(1):22–29. doi: 10.5737/236880762812229

Supportive care needs in predicting the quality of life among gynecological cancer patients

Yati Afiyanti 1,✉, Ariesta Milanti 2, Riska Hediya Putri 3
PMCID: PMC6516217  PMID: 31148629

Abstract

Unmet supportive care needs have been shown to lower the quality of life of cancer patients, including those with gynecological cancer. Therefore, we examined how the unmet supportive care needs might predict the quality of life of gynecology cancer patients under-going therapy. We had a convenience sample of 153 patients from two major cancer hospitals in Jakarta, Indonesia, complete the SCNS-SF34 and EORTC QLQ-30. Analysis showed that unmet supportive care needs predict poorer quality of life (i.e., lower global health status and functional status, and more cancer-related symptoms). This study emphasizes the need for supportive care services in the areas of psychological, physical, and sexuality to be prioritized to improve the patients’ quality of life.

INTRODUCTION

The magnitude of the impact cancer has on an individual extends beyond the physical dimension. Evidence shows that aside from the physical impacts, the course of cancer diagnosis and treatments potentially causes psychosocial effects in both the short and long term (Montgomery & McCrone, 2010; Treanor & Donnelly, 2014; Van Weert et al., 2005). Some of the effects are psychological distress, depression and anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorders (Milanti, Metsälä, & Hannula, 2016; Treanor & Donnelly, 2014). Cancer patients may also experience problems related to relationships, employment, finance, and spiritual life (Cebeci, Yangin, & Tekeli, 2010; Treanor & Donnelly, 2014).

Addressing multidimensional cancer implications requires a comprehensive supportive care service. Supportive care is a person-centred approach to deliver the essential services for people living with or affected by cancer to fulfill their physical, psychological, spiritual, sexual, social, practical, and informational needs during cancer pre-diagnostic, diagnostic, therapy and survivorship (Fitch, 2008; Maguire, Kotronoulas, Simpson, & Paterson, 2015). Supportive care focuses on controlling symptoms and enhancing quality of life (Hui, 2014). Quality of life has been an emphasis in cancer care to address cancer implications in a patient’s life. Improving quality of life helps to minimize the physical and psychological effects of the cancer diagnosis and treatments (Aranda et al., 2005).

Identifying and facilitating supportive care needs can reduce patient’s distress and improve patient satisfaction and quality of life (Fitch & Maamoun, 2016; Sanders, Bantum, Owen, Thornton, & Stanton, 2010). According to Liao et al. (2012), by identifying the patient’s need for supportive care, the health care provider can also get a sense of the patient’s expectation for care which he or she has not yet received. Studies have found that the predominant supportive care needs of cancer patients undergoing diagnostic and treatment procedures were information, healthcare service, and psychological support (Hubbard, Venning, Walker, Scanlon, & Kyle, 2015; So et al., 2014). These studies also pointed out that unmet supportive care needs are linked to low quality of life.

While many have studied supportive care needs and their related aspects, data on how supportive care needs predict the quality of life of cancer patients are still limited. This matter is particularly important in women having gynecological cancer, as this population tends to have lower quality of life and higher distress when compared to other cancer patient groups (Mendle, Eisenlohr-Moul, & Kiesner, 2016).

Moreover, despite the plentiful literature regarding supportive care needs and quality of life, data from lower and middle income countries (LMIC) such as Indonesia are under-reported. Many reviews lack coverage of such socio-demographic settings (Gonçalves, 2010; Maguire et al., 2015). Women with cancer in Indonesia must deal with many environment stressors related to their lower socio-economic, education, and cultural background (Ell et al., 2005).

Eighty-five percent of the global gynecological cancer burden occurs in LMIC (Jemal, Bray, & Ferlay, 2011). The survival rate in LMIC is less than 40%, while the survival has reached higher than 70% in the high-resource countries (Allemani et al., 2015). In Indonesia, there are 95.9 million women at risk for cervical cancer (Bruni et al., 2017). It is estimated there are around 20,928 new cervical cancer cases and 9,428 deaths of cervical cancer in Indonesia annually (Bruni et al., 2017). Other gynecological cancers (i.e., ovary and corpus uteri) are among the five most frequent cancers in Indonesian women. Therefore, studies from Indonesia and other LMICs need more global attention to mobilize support and resources to address these multifaceted problems.

This study is a part of a larger study to develop gynecological cancer care in Indonesia (Afiyanti, Milanti, Putri, Larasati, & Nasution, 2016). The purpose of this study was to examine the supportive care needs as a predictive factor of quality of life for gynecology cancer patients undergoing therapy.

METHODS

Study Design and Setting

A cross-sectional study to predict quality of life from the supportive care needs was completed among patients with gynecological cancer undergoing therapy in two central hospitals in Jakarta, Indonesia. Our study sites included a national cancer centre, to which advanced cancer cases from all over the country are referred, and a central hospital for the Indonesian army. It also serves cancer patients from many regions of Indonesia, especially those with affiliation to the national army.

The study was designed, conducted, and reported with respect to the ethical principles of study with human subjects. Prior to the commencement of the study, we attained ethical clearances from the local Ethics Review Boards.

Sample

We used a convenience sampling method to recruit patients with gynecological cancer (specifically cervical and ovarian cancer) undergoing cancer therapy. Every accessible patient who was attending the one-day care, outpatient, and inpatient units of the two hospitals during May–June 2016 was approached to enroll in our study. The eligibility criteria for the participants were: (1) diagnosed with stage I–IV cervical or ovarian cancer; (2) at present undergoing cancer therapy; (3) formerly received a therapy at least once; (4) physically and mentally able to complete the questionnaires; and (5) able to read and write in standard Indonesian language.

Procedure and Instruments

After giving their written informed consent, participants completed a self-report Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS)-SF34 (McElduff, Boyes, Zucca, et Girgis, 2004) to examine their supportive care needs and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC) QLQ-30 to assess their quality of life. We accompanied the participants while completing the questionnaires for 15–20 minutes and clarified any emergent questions from the participants.

The SCNS-SF34 is a 34-item questionnaire composed of five domains regarding physical, psychological, care support, health system and information, and sexuality needs (Boyes, Girgis, & Lecathelinais, 2009). This questionnaire has a fivepoint Likert scale. Responses that fell into the 1–2 part of the scale were considered a category of ‘no need’ for supportive care, while those that fell into the 3–5 part of the scale fall into the ‘some need’ of supportive care). We used standardized Likert summated score by summing the individual items, subtracting the value of maximum response for each item (k), and multiplying the resulting value by 100 [m x(k-1), m is the number of questions], as suggested by McElduff, et al., (2004). Apart from the original assessment of its construct validity and internal reliability (Bonevski et al., 2000), this instrument has been well-evaluated and adopted in different countries (Li et al., 2013; Okuyama et al., 2009; Schofield, Gough, Lotfi-Jam, & Aranda, 2012; Zeneli et al., 2016). Since it has not been examined in Indonesia previously, we tested it on a different homogenous group of participants and found the validity score of 0.302–0.792, with the Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.933.

The EORTC QLQ-30 has 30 questions covering the three domains of global health status, functional, and symptoms (Scott et al., 2008). This tool has been translated to many languages including Bahasa Indonesia, and widely recognized for its good reliability and validity (Ayana, Negash, Yusuf, Tigeneh, & Haile, 2016; Azmawati, Najibah, Hatta, & Norfazilah, 2014; McCarthy, 2011; Michels, Latorre, & Maciel, 2013; Nejjari et al., 2014). Previous study in Indonesia found this tool to be valid and reliable with the validity score of 0,14–0,48 (Perwitasari et al., 2011).

Statistical Analysis

The univariate data were analyzed with descriptive analysis consisting of frequency distribution and percentages. Furthermore, we conducted multivariate linear regression to scrutinize the supportive care need variables in predicting the quality of life. Clinical variables (i.e., cancer type, stage, period of therapy, and type of therapy) and variables of supportive care needs component summaries (i.e., physical, psychological, patient care, sexuality, health information system) were analyzed to identify which variables specifically contributed to the quality of life. The probability level of 0.05 was set for statistical significance. Analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 22.0, IBM Corp.).

RESULTS

Selected Demographic

A total of 153 participants out of the 167 patients approached were included in this study. The third author was mainly responsible for the data collection and approached all patients in the study setting. Fourteen patients declined to participate due to various reasons: some did not feel like filling out questionnaires and some said they were busy with hospital procedures. All participants completed the questionnaires fully, as we checked directly after the participants filled them out.

Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample in this study. The majority of participants were 55 years of age or younger, worked as housewives, and had lower socioeconomic status (see family income variable) than the average regional minimum wage. Slightly more than half of the participants (59.5%) completed high school or college. In Indonesia, basic education is nine years, consisting of six years of elementary school and three years of junior high school. Nearly 65% of the participants were diagnosed with cervical cancer, while 68% were in early stage (stage I or II). Most participants had been undergoing single therapy for less than or equal to one year.

Table 1.

Demographic profile (n=153)

Variable n (%)
Age
 ≤ 55 years old 118 (77.1)
 > 55 years old 35 (22.9)
Education
 Basic (Elementary school, Junior high school) 62 (40.5)
 Higher (Senior high school, college/ university) 91 (59.5)
Occupation
 Housewife 126 (82.4)
 Employee 27 (17.6)
Family income
 < Regional Minimum Wage 93 (60.8)
 ≥ Regional Minimum Wage 60 (39.2)
Chemotherapy cycle
 1-weekly 52 (40.6)
 3-weekly 76 (59.4)
Cancer type
 Cervical 99 (64.7)
 Ovary 54 (35.3)
Cancer stage
 Early (Stage I and II) 104 (68)
 Advanced (Stage III and IV) 49 (32)
Period of cancer therapy
 ≤ 1 year 141 (92.2)
 > 1 year 12 (7.8)
Therapy type
 Single 95 (62.1)
 Combined 58 (37.9)
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Patient supportive care needs (n = 153)

Variable n (%)
Supportive care needs
 Patients with no need* 6 (3.9)
 Patients with some need** 147 (96.1)
Physical
 Patients with no need 30 (19.6)
 Patients with some need 123 (80.4)
Psychological
 Patients with no need 43 (28.1)
 Patients with some need 110 (71.9)
Patient care
 Patients with no need 39 (25.5)
 Patients with some need 114 (74.5)
Health system Information
 Patients with no need 45 (29.4)
 Patients with some need 108 (70.6)
Sexuality
 Patients with no need 99 (64.7)
 Patients with some need 54 (35.3)
Open in a new tab
*

Patients indicate that either this issue is not a problem for them or they do need help with this issue but the need has been satisfied at the time.

**

Patients indicate that this issue causes them concern or discomfort, and their need of additional help ranges from low, moderate, and high.

Supportive Care Needs

Ninety-six percent of participants stated that their needs for supportive care had caused them a lot of concern, thus needing additional help. Of all supportive care need domains, the highest number of patients reported their needs in the physical domain (80.4%). In contrast, only a minority of participants (35.5%) stated some needs in sexuality.

The detailed unmet supportive care needs of the participants are presented in Table 3. Of all items in the supportive care needs questionnaire, the most frequently identified unmet need was “concerns about the worries of those close to the patients” (89.5%) in the psychological domain. The unmet need reported least frequently was changes in sexual feelings (19%) in the sexuality domain.

Table 3.

Prevalence of unmet supportive care needs (n = 153)

Unmet supportive care needs n (%)
Physical
 Pain 97 (63.4)
 Lack of energy/tiredness 120 (78.4)
 Feeling unwell a lot of the time 124 (81)
 Work around the home 115 (75.2)
 Not being able to do the things you used to do 120 (78.4)
Psychological
 Anxiety 103 (67.3)
 Feeling down or depressed 96 (62.7)
 Feelings of sadness 103 (67.3)
 Fears about the cancer spreading 116 (75.8)
 Worry that the results of treatment are beyond your control 119 (77.8)
 Uncertainty about the future 105 (68.6)
 Learning to feel in control of your situation 74 (48.4)
 Keeping a positive outlook 63 (41.2)
 Feelings about death and dying 116 (75.8)
 Concerns about the worries of those close to you 137 (89.5)
Sexuality
 Changes in sexual feelings 29 (19)
 Changes in your sexual relationships 36 (23.5)
 To be given information about sexual relationships 59 (38,6)
Patient care
 More choice about which cancer specialists you see 98 (64.1)
 More choice about which hospital you attend 95 (62.1)
 Reassurance by medical staff that the way you feel is normal 97 (63.4)
 Hospital staff attending promptly to your physical needs 93 (60.8)
 Hospital staff acknowledging, and showing sensitivity to, your feelings and emotional needs 105 (68.6)
Health system Information
 Being given written information about the important aspects of your care 95 (62.1)
 Being given information (written, diagrams, drawings) about aspects of managing your illness and side-effects at home 101 (66)
 Being given explanations of those tests for which you would like explanations 100 (65.4)
Being adequately informed about the benefits and side-effects of treatments before you choose to have them
 Being informed about your test results as soon as feasible 100 (65.4)
 Being informed about cancer which is under control or diminishing (that is, remission) 107 (69.9)
 Being informed about things you can do to help yourself to get well 99 (64.7)
 Having access to professional counselling (e.g., psychologist, social worker, counsellor, nurse specialist) if you, family or friends need it 105 (68.6)
 Being treated like a person not just another case 80 (52.3)
 Being treated in a hospital or clinic that is as physically pleasant as possible 80 (52.3)
 Having one member of hospital staff with whom you can talk to about all aspects of your condition, treatment and follow-up 104 (68)
Open in a new tab

Unmet supportive care needs predicted poorer global health status and functional quality of life, as well as more symptoms among participants (see Table 4). In the global health status domain, the strongest predictor was unmet psychological needs. In the functional domain, the unmet physical, psychological, sexuality, and health system information needs explained 28.1% of the variance in patients’ quality of life, with unmet needs in the sexuality domains as the strongest predictor. Of the symptom scale domain, 27.1% of it was determined by the unmet supportive care needs, and the strongest predictor was the unmet physical needs.

Table 4.

Supportive care needs to predict quality of life

Quality of Life Unstandardized B Standarized beta p R2 Adjusted R2
Global Health Status
 Unmet supportive care needs
  Physical −9.027 −0.189 0.015* 0.172 0.156
  Psychological −11.286 −0.268 0.001*
  Sexuality −6.369 −0.161 0.035*
Functional
 Unmet supportive care needs
  Physical −8.623 −0.229 0.002* 0.281 0.261
  Psychological −5.732 −0.172 0.021*
  Sexuality −9.847 −0.315 <0.001*
  Health system Information −4.191 −0.128 0.099
Symptom
 Unmet supportive care needs
  Physical 9.837 0.260 <0.001* 0.290 0.271
  Psychological 4.420 0.132 0.074
  Sexuality 7.876 0.251 0.001*
  Health system Information 7.370 0.224 0.004
Open in a new tab
*

significant at the 0.05 level

DISCUSSION

The main finding of this study was that unmet supportive care needs predict poorer quality of life of the gynecological cancer patients in Indonesia. Patients with more unmet supportive care needs tend to have lower global health status and functional status, as well as more symptoms related to cancer or cancer treatment. Furthermore, this study found that different domains of supportive care needs made different contributions towards the quality-of-life scores. The strongest predictor of the global health status was the unmet psychological needs. Unmet sexual needs and unmet physical needs were the strongest predictors of the quality of life in the functional and symptom domains, respectively.

This finding is consistent with previous studies that indicated insufficient treatment to address cancer and its treatment side effects is related to poor quality of life (Bayram, Durna, & Akin, 2014; Cramarossa et al., 2013). Prior study among testicular cancer survivors also showed those reporting more unmet supportive care needs had lower quality of life (Smith et al., 2013). A study in breast cancer survivors also found the link between unmet supportive care needs and quality of life (So et al., 2014).

The gynecological patients in this study expressed physically-related unmet needs as the most frequently reported unmet supportive care needs, slightly above unmet psychological needs. Previous studies in different countries yielded different results with the health and information domain (Li et al., 2013) or the psychological domain (Brédart et al., 2013; Molassiotis et al., 2014) being the most prevalent unmet need. However, as mentioned by Molassiotis, Wilson, Blair, Howe, and Cavet (2011), comparison to other studies regarding supportive care needs in different cancer groups could be tricky due to varied approaches in the calculation of needs, assessment methods and timing, and sample characteristics. Patients’ problems can also differ because of various culture and personal values (Effendy et al., 2014).

Quality of life in terms of global health status is strongly predicted by the unmet psychological needs. The unmet psychological needs represent psychological concerns of the patients that ought to be addressed with appropriate supportive care. Thus, psychological care is an essential area to target for significantly improving the general sense of patients’ quality of life.

In this study, even though the psychological domain was second in overall prevalence after physical supportive care, the most frequently reported unmet need among all supportive care items was in the psychological domain: “concerns, worries of those close to the patients”. In other words, the female patients with gynecological cancer were worried about their significant others rather than themselves. McMullin (2016) describes this phenomenon as the sociality of cancer, where the social context affects how the cancer patients attend to their disease. Livingston (2012) highlights that most patients in poor-resource settings are more concerned about the needs of their family instead of their own biomedical concerns. This is closely related to the female identity and role performance, as a wife and mother, that are disrupted by the effects of cancer (Little, Paul, Jordens, & Sayers, 2002).

Despite the markedly low number of patients reporting unmet supportive care needs in sexuality, interestingly, unmet sexual need was found to be strongest predictor of the quality of life in terms of functioning difficulties. A qualitative study in Indonesia (Afiyanti & Milanti, 2013), however, revealed a contrasting result in that the patients with cervical cancer experienced sexual concerns, including pain during sexual intercourse, bleeding, and loss of sexual desire. Previous studies in other countries also support the evidence of sexual issues among gynecological cancer patients (Abbott-Anderson & Kwekkeboom, 2012; Chow, Wong, & Shek, 2014; Hautamäki-Lamminen, Lipiäinen, Beaver, Lehto, & Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, 2013). Moreover, sexuality is still considered to be a taboo topic to raise, so it tends to be ignored in Indonesian culture (Afiyanti, Rachmawati, & Milanti, 2016). Considering the cultural context of this study, even with the in-depth interview approach, the female patients often failed to express their concerns regarding sexuality (Afiyanti & Milanti, 2013). Hence, the self-report questionnaire might not reflect the true sexuality problem of the gynecological patients in this study. In addition, our patients may not expect to receive supportive care for sexual concerns since such service is still rarely found in Indonesia (Afiyanti et al., 2016).

The unfulfilled physical needs, on the other hand, strongly predicted more perceived symptoms in the quality-of-life measurement. The supportive care needs in the physical domain encompassed the needs to overcome physical symptoms, the treatment side effects, and to maintain the daily activities (McElduff, Boyes, Zucca, & Girgis, 2004). Addressing the physical needs of the patients, therefore, is a key area of supportive care. Improving physical well-being is also highly correlated with increased psychological well-being and overall quality of life (Ashing-Giwa & Lim, 2010).

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The results of this study imply that the supportive care services in the area of psychological, physical, and sexuality must be prioritized for resource allocation and action to better improve the patients’ quality of life. Nurses should identify the supportive care needs of the patients with gynecological cancer, as the first step to improve the quality of life of these patients. Our study findings also encourage health care providers and management to make supportive care service available, not only for the patients, but also for their significant others who are their caregivers. It is necessary to tailor nursing care according to the patient’s personal needs. Future studies should assess approaches in effectively managing supportive care needs of the cancer patients.

REFERENCES

  1. Abbott-Anderson K, Kwekkeboom KL. A systematic review of sexual concerns reported by gynecological cancer survivors. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012;124(3):477–489. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Afiyanti Y, Milanti A. Physical sexual and intimate relationship concerns among Indonesian cervical cancer survivors: A phenomenological study. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2013;15(2):151–156. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Afiyanti Y, Milanti A, Putri RH, Larasati L, Nasution C. The development of gynecological cancer prevention program among Indonesian women: Research report. Depok, Indonesia: 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Afiyanti Y, Rachmawati I, Milanti A. Evaluating sexual nursing care intervention for reducing sexual dysfunction in Indonesian cervical cancer survivors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2016;3(3):266. doi: 10.4103/2347-5625.189812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H, Harewood R, Spika D, Wang XS, Coleman MP. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: Analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2) The Lancet. 2015;385(9972):977–1010. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62038-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Aranda S, Schofield P, Weih L, Yates P, Milne D, Faulker R, Voudouris N. Mapping the quality of life and unmet needs of urban women with metastatic breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer. 2005;14:211–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2005.00541.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ashing-Giwa KT, Lim J. Predicting physical quality of life among a multiethnic sample of breast cancer survivors. Qualitative Life Research. 2010;19:789–802. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9642-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ayana BA, Negash S, Yusuf L, Tigeneh W, Haile D. Reliability and validity of amharic version of EORTC QLQ-C 30 questionnaire among gynecological cancer patients in Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):1–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Azmawati MN, Najibah E, Hatta MDAZ, Norfazilah A. Quality of life by stage of cervical cancer among Malaysian patients. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2014;15(13):5283–5286. doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.13.5283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bayram Z, Durna Z, Akin S. Quality of life during chemotherapy and satisfaction with nursing care in Turkish breast cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2014;23(5):675–684. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Burton L, Cook P, Boyes A, Grp SCR. Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with cancer. Cancer. 2000;88(1):217–225. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000101)88:1<217::aid-cncr29>3.0.co;2-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Boyes A, Girgis A, Lecathelinais C. Brief assessment of adult cancer patients’ perceived needs: Development and validation of the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34) Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2009;15(4):602–606. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01057.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brédart A, Kop JL, Griesser AC, Fiszer C, Zaman K, Panes-Ruedin B, Dolbeault S. Assessment of needs, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with care in breast cancer patients to better target supportive care. Annals of Oncology. 2013;24(8):2151–2158. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bruni L, Barrionuevo-Rosas L, Albero G, Serrano B, Mena M, Gómez D, de Sanjosé S. Human Papillomavirus and related diseases in Indonesia. Barcelona: 2017. http://www.hpvcentre.net. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cebeci F, Yangin HB, Tekeli A. Determination of changes in the sexual lives of young women receiving breast cancer treatment: A qualitative study. Sexuality and Disability. 2010;28(4):255–264. doi: 10.1007/s11195-010-9169-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chow KM, Wong CY, Shek LL. Sexual functioning of gynecological cancer patients: A literature review. World Journal of Oncology Research. 2014;14:5–12. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cramarossa G, Chow E, Zhang L, Bedard G, Zeng L, Sahgal A, Bottomley A. Predictive factors for overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2013;21(6):1709–1716. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1717-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Effendy C, Vissers K, Osse BHP, Tejawinata S, Vernooij-Dassen M, Engels Y. Comparison of problems and unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer in a European country and an Asian country. Pain Practice. 2014 doi: 10.1111/papr.12196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ell K, Sanchez K, Vourlekis B, Lee PJ, Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino I, Russell C. Depression, correlates of depression, and receipt of depression care among low-income women with breast or gynecologic cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005;23(13):3052–3060. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fitch MI. Supportive care framework. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal / Revue canadienne de soins infirmiers en oncologie. 2008;18(1):6–24. doi: 10.5737/1181912x181614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fitch MI, Maamoun J. Unmet supportive care needs and desire for assistance in patients receiving radiation treatment: Implications for oncology nursing. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal / Revue canadienne de soins infirmiers en oncologie. 2016;26(1):53–59. doi: 10.5737/236880762615359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gonçalves V. Long-term quality of life in gynecological cancer survivors. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2010;22(1):30–35. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328332e626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hautamäki-Lamminen K, Lipiäinen L, Beaver K, Lehto J, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL. Identifying cancer patients with greater need for information about sexual issues. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2013;17(1):9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2012.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hubbard G, Venning C, Walker A, Scanlon K, Kyle RG. Supportive care needs of women with breast cancer in rural Scotland. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:1523–1532. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2501-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hui D. Definition of supportive care: Does the semantic matter? Current Opinion in Oncology. 2014;26(4):372–379. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jemal A, Bray F, Ferlay J. Global Cancer Statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107. . Available. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Li WWY, Lam WWT, Au AHY, Ye M, Law WL, Poon J, Fielding R. Interpreting differences in patterns of supportive care needs between patients with breast cancer and patients with colorectal cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22(4):792–798. doi: 10.1002/pon.3068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Li WWY, Lam WWT, Shun SC, Lai YH, Law WL, Poon J, Fielding R. Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34-C) among Hong Kong and Taiwanese Chinese colorectal cancer patients. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):1–9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Liao M, Chen S, Chen S, Lin Y, Hsu Y, Hung H, et al. Changes and predictors of unmet supportive care needs in Taiwanese women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2012;39(5):E380–89. doi: 10.1188/12.ONF.E380-E389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Little M, Paul KIM, Jordens CFC, Sayers E. Survivorship and discourses of identity. Special Issue: Survivorship. 2002;178(2001, May):170–178. doi: 10.1002/pon.549. http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc4&NEWS=N&AN=2002-02593-008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Livingston J. Improvising medicine: An African oncology ward in an emerging cancer epidemic. Durham: Duke University Press; 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Maguire R, Kotronoulas G, Simpson M, Paterson C. A systematic review of the supportive care needs of women living with and beyond cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2015;136(3):478–490. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. McCarthy B. Family members of patients with cancer: what they know, how they know and what they want to know. European Journal of Oncology Nursing: The Official Journal of European Oncology Nursing Society. 2011;15(5):428–441. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2010.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. McElduff P, Boyes A, Zucca A, Girgis A. Supportive Care Needs Survey: A guide to administration, scoring and analysis. Australia: University of New Castle; Newcastle: Centre for Health Research & Psycho-Oncology; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  35. McMullin J. Cancer. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2016;45(1):251–266. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-100217. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mendle J, Eisenlohr-Moul T, Kiesner J. From Menarche to Menopause: Women’s reproductive milestones and risk for psychopathology—An introduction to the special series. Clinical Psychological Science. 2016;4(5):859–866. doi: 10.1177/2167702616650424. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Michels FAS, Latorre MDRDDO, Maciel MDS. Validity, reliability and understanding of the EORTC-C30 and EORTC-BR23, quality of life questionnaires specific for breast cancer. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia = Brazilian Journal of Epidemiology. 2013;16(2):352–363. doi: 10.1590/S1415-790X2013000200011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Milanti A, Metsälä E, Hannula L. Reducing psychological distress in patients undergoing chemotherapy. British Journal of Nursing. 2016;25(4):S25–S30. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2016.25.4.S25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Molassiotis A, Brunton L, Hodgetts J, Green AC, Beesley VL, Mulatero C, Lorigan P. Prevalence and correlates of unmet supportive care needs in patients with resected invasive cutaneous melanoma. Annals of Oncology: Official Journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2014;25(10):2052–2058. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Molassiotis A, Wilson B, Blair S, Howe T, Cavet J. Unmet supportive care needs, psychological well-being and quality of life in patients living with multiple myeloma and their partners. Psycho-Oncology. 2011;20(1):88–97. doi: 10.1002/pon.1710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Montgomery M, McCrone SH. Psychological distress associated with the diagnostic phase for suspected breast cancer: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2010;66(11):2372–2390. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05439.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nejjari C, El Fakir S, Bendahhou K, El Rhazi K, Abda N, Zidouh A, Bekkali R. Translation and validation of European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life Questionnaire -C30 into Moroccan version for cancer patients in Morocco. BMC Research Notes. 2014;7(1):6. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Okuyama T, Akechi T, Yamashita H, Toyama T, Endo C, Sagawa R, Furukawa TA. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Short-form Supportive Care Needs Survey questionnaire (SCNS-SF34-J) Psycho-Oncology. 2009;18(9):1003–1010. doi: 10.1002/pon.1482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Perwitasari DA, Atthobari J, Dwiprahasto I, Hakimi M, Gelderblom H, Putter H, Kaptein AA. Translation and validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 into Indonesian version for cancer patients in Indonesia. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011;41(4):519–529. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyq243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sanders SL, Bantum EO, Owen JE, Thornton AA, Stanton AL. Supportive care needs in patients with lung cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2010;19(5):480–489. doi: 10.1002/pon.1577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Schofield P, Gough K, Lotfi-Jam K, Aranda S. Validation of the Supportive Care Needs Survey-short form 34 with a simplified response format in men with prostate cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2012;21(10):1107–1112. doi: 10.1002/pon.2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Scott N, Fayers P, NA, Bottomley A, Graeff D, Sprangers M, Al E. EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values. Brussels: EORTC Groups; 2008. http://groups.eortc.be/qol/sites/default/files/img/newsletter/reference_values_manual2008.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  48. Smith A, King M, Butow P, Luckett T, Grimison P, Toner G, Olver I. The prevalence and correlates of supportive care needs in testicular cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study. Psychooncology. 2013;22(11):2557–2564. doi: 10.1002/pon.3323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. So WKW, Ming KM, Chan HYL, Chow KC, Wan RWM, Mak SSS, Chan CWH. Quality of life and most prevalent unmet needs of Chinese breast cancer survivors at one year after cancer treatment. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2014;18(3):323–328. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2014.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Treanor CJ, Donnelly M. The late effects of cancer and cancer treatment: A rapid review. The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology. 2014;12(4):137–148. doi: 10.12788/jcso.0035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Grol B, Otter R, Arendzen HJ, Postema K, Van Der Schans C. A multidimensional cancer rehabilitation program for cancer survivors: Effectiveness on health-related quality of life. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2005;58(6):485–496. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zeneli A, Fabbri E, Donati E, Tierney G, Pasa S, Berardi MA, Maltoni M. Translation of Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34 (SCNS-SF34) into Italian and cultural validation study. Supportive Care in Cancer: Official Journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2016;24(2):843–848. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2852-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology

RESOURCES