Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies and critical appraisal.

Author	Region	Aim	Methods	Number of participants	Age group	Study population/relation to the patient	Patient characteristics	Part of a larger study?	Critical appraisal unmet criteria*
Rose et al. 20	UK, Europe	To gain knowledge through understanding the lived experience of family caregivers of someone diagnosed with terminal cancer.	Based on literary criticism	21 families	Unknown	Family caregiver	Patients diagnosed with cancer with a prognosis of less than 6 months or patients who recently died of cancer.	No	1, 4, 6, 7
Strang and Koop 21	Canada, North America	To present findings related to how caregivers cope while caring for a dying family member at home.	Exploratory, interpretative, and descriptive study	15 (11 women, four men)	37–81 years (mean 58.5)	Nine spouses, four children, one sibling, one daughter in law	The patients died because of cancer one to 12 months before the first interview.	No	5, 6
Hudson 22	Melbourne, Australia	To explore the challenges and positive aspects associated with supporting a relative or friend dying of cancer at home.	Thematic analysis	47 (65% women)	Mean 60 years	65% spouses	Patients with advanced cancer, with a life-expectancy <12 months and receiving metropolitan community palliative care.	Yes	1, 4, 5, 6, 8
Stajduhar et al. 23	Western Canada, America	To describe factors that influence family caregivers’ ability to provide end-of-life cancer care at home.	Interpretive, descriptive approach	29 (26 women, three men)	40–85 years (mean 65)	22 spouses, three children, three siblings, three parents	Patients with advanced cancer (brain, gastrointestinal, liver, lung, blood, ovarian, prostate, renal) in which the primary goal of treatment was palliative and who had a life expectancy of 6 months or less.	Yes	6
Wong et al. 24	NSW, Australia	To extend previous research on positive aspects of informal cancer caregiving	Thematic analysis from a phenomenological perspective	23 (18 women, five men)	19–85 years (mean 57)	Primary family caregiver: (five children, one sibling, 14 life partners/spouses, one parent, two friends)	The patients died because of cancer (respiratory, breast, pancreatic, renal, brain, colorectal/gastro-intestinal, hematological, gynecological, prostate, mesothelioma).	Yes	4, 6
Wong and Ussher 25	NSW, Australia	To examine bereaved informal caregivers’ accounts of positive aspects of providing palliative cancer care at home.	Social constructionist epistemology/thematic analysis	22 (17 women, five men)	19–71 years (mean 55.3)	Primary family caregiver: (five children, one sibling, 14 life partners/spouses)	The patients died because of cancer 1 month to 10 years before the interview (mean 26.8 months).	Yes	4, 6
Benkel et al. 26	Sweden, Europe	To increase knowledge concerning what forms of coping strategies loved ones use when a family member is faced with an incurable cancer.	Interpretive content analysis	20	Most <65 years	Spouses, adult children, siblings, friends	Patients diagnosed with cancer (majority prostate or breast cancer).	No	6
Sand et al. 27	Sweden, Europe	To investigate the question: “Why do people in a family choose to take responsibility when a member is stricken with a serious disease?”	Existential hermeneutics	20 (12 women, eight men)	16–79 years (mean 58)	12 spouses, six adult children, one parent, one sibling	Cancer is only mentioned in the title. It is unclear whether all interviews took place while the patient was still alive or not.	Yes	6
Milberg and Strang 28	Sweden, Europe	To describe aspects that, from the family members’ perspective, are experienced as protective against perceptions of powerlessness and/or helplessness or as helpful when coping with such experiences during palliative home care.	Manifest qualitative content analysis	233 (148 women, 84 men, 1?)	31–91 years (mean 71)	157 spouses or live-partners, 51 children, 11 siblings, five parents, eight other, and one unknown	Patients diagnosed with cancer (lung, gastro-intestinal, prostate, liver, pancreas, breast, brain, other).	No	5, 6
Sjolander et al. 29	Sweden, Europe	To explore management strategies that family members use when the patient is in the early stage of treatment for advanced cancer.	Latent content analysis	20 (16 women, four men)	31–77 years (mean 60)	Family members (11 partners, two cohabitants, five adult children, one uncle, one ex-partner)	Patients recently (8–14 weeks earlier) diagnosed with advanced lung or gastrointestinal cancer.	No	6
Mosher et al. 30	Indianapolis, USA, America	To identify advanced, symptomatic lung cancer patients’ and caregivers’ strategies for coping with various physical and psychological symptoms.	Theoretical thematic analysis framed by stress and coping theory	21 patients and 21 caregivers	Patients: 39–80 (mean 63), Caregivers 38–78 (mean 58)	Patients and caregivers. Twele spouses/partners, four adult children, five siblings	Lung cancer patients with significant pain, fatigue, breathlessness, anxiety, or depressive symptoms.	No	None
Engeli et al. 31	Switzerland, Europe	To analyze resilience as per Antonowsky’s sense of coherence. To identify differences and changes in resilience 6 months after the first interview.	Content analysis	eight patients and eight partners	Patients 44–75 years, Partners 46–82 years	Patients and partners	Patients recently diagnosed with advanced malignant melanoma.	No	6
Mosher et al. 32	Indianapolis, USA, America	To identify positive changes in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and their primary family caregivers since the diagnosis.	Thematic analysis	23 patients (9 women, 14 men), 23 caregivers (20 women, three men)	Patients: 40–82 (mean 58), Caregivers 35–76 (mean 56)	Patients and their family caregiver (18 spouses/partners, five other family members).	Patients diagnosed 8 weeks prior with advanced (stage III or IV) colorectal cancer.	No	None
Sparla et al. 33	Germany, Europe	To explore and compare reflections that arise out of the context of diagnosis and to compare how patients and their relatives try to handle advanced lung cancer.	Qualitative content analysis with deductive and inductive approach	18 (nine patients (three women, six men), nine relatives (six women, three men)	Patients 55–79 years (mean 63), Relatives 51–66 (mean 54)	Patients and their relatives. Six spouses.	Patients with lung cancer stage 4	No	6
Walshe et al. 11	North west of England, Europe	To understand successful strategies used by people to cope well when living with advanced cancer; To explore how professionals can support effective coping strategies; To understand how to support development of effective coping strategies for patients and family caregivers.	Constant comparison	50 (26 patients, 24 caregivers)	Patients 32–82 years (mean 56.9), caregivers 28–74 (mean 52.5)	People with advanced cancer and their family caregivers (17 spouses, four children, two parents, one sibling).	Patients diagnosed with advanced cancer (breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, other).	No	None
Roen et al. 34	Norway, Europe	To explore factors promoting caregiver resilience, based on caregivers’ experiences with and preferences for healthcare provider support.	Systematic text condensation	14 (seven women, seven men)	Mean age 59 years	Family caregivers of advanced cancer patients (12 partners, two children)	Patients diagnosed with advanced cancer (breast, colon, gallbladder, kidney, lymph, pancreas, prostate, skin) and enrolled in a palliative care program.	No	6
Opsomer et al. 35	Flanders, Belgium, Europe	To explore what intrinsic and extrinsic resources facilitate or hamper resilience in the middle-aged partner of a patient with incurable cancer.	Thematic analysis	9 (six women, three men)	42–58 years (mean 54)	Partners of cancer patients.	The patients died of cancer (colon, skin, breast, glioblastoma, pancreatic) less than 12 months before the interview.	No	None

^*Critical appraisal: criteria: (1) Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?

(2) Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?

(3) Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?

(4) Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?

(5) Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?

(6) Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?

(7) Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?

(8) Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?