Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22089430›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2012

The unfulfilled promise: a systematic review of interventions to reduce the unmet supportive care needs of cancer patients.

Mariko Carey, Sylvie Lambert, Rochelle Smits, Chris Paul, Rob Sanson-Fisher, Tara Clinton-McHarg

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 151 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A mixed studies systematic review of the unmet treatment, support, and information needs of cancer survivors in managing menopause symptoms.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of online supportive care for individuals living with and beyond lung cancer: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Unmet care needs in people living with advanced cancer: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Professional patient navigation in a hospital setting: a randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Unmet informational needs of patients with cancer: do clinicians know which patients are in need?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Virtual reality-based supportive care interventions for patients with cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mariko CareyFaculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Priority Research Centre for Health Behavior, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. Mariko.Carey@newcastle.edu.au
Sylvie Lambert
Rochelle Smits
Chris Paul
Rob Sanson-Fisher
Tara Clinton-McHarg
University of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis review aimed to examine (a) trends in the number of publications on unmet needs over time and (b) the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce unmet needs among cancer patients.

methodsAn electronic literature search of Medline to explore trends in the number of publications on patients' unmet needs and an additional literature search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Web of Science databases to identify methodologically rigorous research trials that evaluated interventions to reduce unmet needs were conducted.

resultsPublications per year on unmet needs have increased over time, with most being on descriptive research. Nine relevant trials were identified. Six trials reported no intervention effect. Three trials reported that intervention participants had a lower number of unmet needs or lower unmet needs score, compared to control participants. Of these, one study found that the intervention group had fewer supportive care needs and lower mean depression scores; one study found that intervention participants with high problem-solving skills had fewer unmet needs at follow-up; and one study found an effect in favor of the intervention group on psychological need subscale scores.

conclusionsReasons for varying results across trials and the limited effectiveness of unmet needs interventions are more broadly discussed. These include inadequacies in psychometric rigor, problems with scoring methods, the use of ineffective interventions, and lack of adherence to intervention protocols.

Indexed as

Health Services Needs and DemandNeeds AssessmentHumansNeoplasmsPsychometricsResearch DesignTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID22089430
PMCPMC3244607
OpenAlexW2061135977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.