ReviewInternational journal of nursing sciences2026
Healthcare professionals' perspectives on disclosure of diagnosis and related issues in childhood cancer: A mixed methods systematic review.
Review in International journal of nursing sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This review aimed to systematically synthesize the available research on the disclosure of diagnosis and related issues in childhood cancer from the perspectives of healthcare professionals, with the goal of informing the optimization of disclosure processes and meeting the communication needs of affected families. Methods: In accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews, the convergent segregated approach was used in this review. Articles were retrieved from 11 databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Embase, Ovid/Medline, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Scopus, ERIC, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The quality of the selected articles was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024542746). Results: A total of 21 studies from 10 countries were included. Their methodological quality was generally medium to high, with MMAT scores ranging from 60 % to 100 %. The synthesis yielded three core themes: 1) the spectrum of professional and societal attitudes toward disclosure; 2) the dynamic practices of navigating disclosure amid uncertainty, including timing and environment, stakeholders, and content of disclosure; and 3) factors influencing disclosure, including children's, parental, healthcare professionals', and socio-cultural factors. Conclusions: This review synthesized the perspectives and experiences of healthcare professionals regarding disclosure in childhood cancer, highlighting the complexity and multidimensional nature of this process in clinical practice. Future research should further investigate the experiences and needs of children and their parents, explore cultural variations in disclosure practices, develop context-appropriate assessment tools, and construct multidimensional intervention strategies to enhance the humanistic care and professional effectiveness of the disclosure process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.