Patient education for older adults with cancer and their caregivers: A scoping review.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Lu Lin, Schroder Sattar, Ivan Steenstra, Nai-Wen Ku, Swatika Anand, Harriet Ho, Christina Oleynikov, Kristen Haase, Isabella Celik, Sara Mirzaei, Maryjo Antonio, Indrani Paul, Silmi Hirji, Morayo Aladejana, Ryan McNally, Janet Papadakos, Rouhi Fazelzad, Fay Bennie, Shabbir Alibhai, Martine Puts
{"title":"Patient education for older adults with cancer and their caregivers: A scoping review.","authors":"Lu Lin, Schroder Sattar, Ivan Steenstra, Nai-Wen Ku, Swatika Anand, Harriet Ho, Christina Oleynikov, Kristen Haase, Isabella Celik, Sara Mirzaei, Maryjo Antonio, Indrani Paul, Silmi Hirji, Morayo Aladejana, Ryan McNally, Janet Papadakos, Rouhi Fazelzad, Fay Bennie, Shabbir Alibhai, Martine Puts","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2026.104656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient education is essential for older adults with cancer and their caregivers to support understanding of diagnosis and treatment. However, the evidence describing patient education interventions has not been comprehensively mapped. Our objective was to characterize the features, delivery approaches, and outcomes of patient education interventions developed for older adults with cancer and/or their caregivers across any study design, and to identify gaps in the evidence.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guideline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched on January 23, 2025. Studies published from 2000 onward were included if they evaluated healthcare professional-delivered patient education.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 26,898 records screened, 93 studies met inclusion criteria. Most interventions were delivered pre-treatment (n = 63), with surgery the most common context (n = 31). Common aims included side-effect prevention (n = 32) and supporting treatment decision-making (n = 26). Caregiver involvement was limited. Outcomes were clustered into 20 domains. Frequent reported domains were satisfaction/acceptability (52 occurrences) and knowledge/understanding (46 occurrences), while caregiver outcomes and clinical endpoints were rarely assessed.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Patient education interventions generally improved knowledge and satisfaction, but evidence for clinical or system-level impacts remains limited. Key gaps include minimal integration of geriatric assessment, limited adaptation for cognitive impairment, sparse caregiver-specific outcomes, and inconsistent reporting of unintended effects. Future research should better integrate caregiver needs and geriatric principles into patient education design.</p>","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"18 2","pages":"104656"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of geriatric oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2026.104656","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Patient education is essential for older adults with cancer and their caregivers to support understanding of diagnosis and treatment. However, the evidence describing patient education interventions has not been comprehensively mapped. Our objective was to characterize the features, delivery approaches, and outcomes of patient education interventions developed for older adults with cancer and/or their caregivers across any study design, and to identify gaps in the evidence.

Materials and methods: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guideline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched on January 23, 2025. Studies published from 2000 onward were included if they evaluated healthcare professional-delivered patient education.

Results: From 26,898 records screened, 93 studies met inclusion criteria. Most interventions were delivered pre-treatment (n = 63), with surgery the most common context (n = 31). Common aims included side-effect prevention (n = 32) and supporting treatment decision-making (n = 26). Caregiver involvement was limited. Outcomes were clustered into 20 domains. Frequent reported domains were satisfaction/acceptability (52 occurrences) and knowledge/understanding (46 occurrences), while caregiver outcomes and clinical endpoints were rarely assessed.

Discussion: Patient education interventions generally improved knowledge and satisfaction, but evidence for clinical or system-level impacts remains limited. Key gaps include minimal integration of geriatric assessment, limited adaptation for cognitive impairment, sparse caregiver-specific outcomes, and inconsistent reporting of unintended effects. Future research should better integrate caregiver needs and geriatric principles into patient education design.

老年癌症患者及其护理人员的患者教育:范围综述。
患者教育对于老年癌症患者和他们的照顾者来说是必不可少的,以支持对诊断和治疗的理解。然而,描述患者教育干预措施的证据尚未全面绘制。我们的目的是描述在任何研究设计中为老年癌症患者和/或其照顾者开发的患者教育干预措施的特征、交付方法和结果,并确定证据中的差距。材料和方法:使用Arksey和O'Malley框架进行范围审查,并根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行报告。MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO和Scopus在2025年1月23日进行了检索。2000年以后发表的研究如果评估了医疗保健专业人员提供的患者教育,则纳入其中。结果:从筛选的26,898条记录中,有93项研究符合纳入标准。大多数干预措施在治疗前进行(n = 63),手术是最常见的情况(n = 31)。共同的目标包括副作用预防(n = 32)和支持治疗决策(n = 26)。护理人员的参与有限。结果被聚类到20个领域。经常报告的领域是满意度/可接受性(52次)和知识/理解(46次),而护理者的结果和临床终点很少被评估。讨论:患者教育干预通常提高知识和满意度,但临床或系统层面影响的证据仍然有限。主要的差距包括:很少整合老年评估、对认知障碍的适应有限、针对照顾者的结果很少、对意外影响的报告不一致。未来的研究应更好地将护理者需求和老年学原则纳入患者教育设计中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of geriatric oncology
Journal of geriatric oncology ONCOLOGY-GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
379
审稿时长
80 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Geriatric Oncology is an international, multidisciplinary journal which is focused on advancing research in the treatment and survivorship issues of older adults with cancer, as well as literature relevant to education and policy development in geriatric oncology. The journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts in the following categories: • Original research articles • Review articles • Clinical trials • Education and training articles • Short communications • Perspectives • Meeting reports • Letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书