ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
The global cancer mental health survey: insights from patient and provider experiences on psychosocial care access.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Referral and Activity in Specialist Psycho-Oncology Services: A Survey of Provision in England and Scotland.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Psychosocial oncology (PSO) is essential to comprehensive cancer care, yet access and delivery remain inconsistent and inadequate globally. This study mapped patient- and provider-reported experiences of barriers shaping PSO access globally. Methods: Cross-sectional, web-based surveys were administered separately to adults with a self-reported cancer diagnosis and to oncology healthcare providers (HCPs) in five languages between November 12, 2024 and April 25, 2025. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regressions examined associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors with PSO access, perceptions, and delivery. Findings: The final sample included 200 patients from 16 countries and 237 HCPs from 38 countries. Among patients, 85.0% rated PSO care as highly important, with 81.0% considering it as important as biomedical care, yet 63.5% reported receiving no PSO care. Among HCPs, 53.2% indicated PSO is not routinely provided at their institutions. Mental health stigma and cultural norms affecting comfort discussing emotional concerns were commonly reported barriers, reported by 57.0% and 64.0% of patients, respectively, and 52.7% and 74.3% of HCPs. Workforce and training gaps were substantial, with 66.6% of HCPs reporting insufficient specialized staff, and 42.1% reporting no formal training in PSO. Investment in PSO research was perceived as low, with 60.3% of HCPs estimating that <10% of national cancer research funding was allocated to PSO and 69.6% viewing overall research support as insufficient. Interpretation: Patients and providers emphasized the importance of PSO; however, PSO was reported to be under-delivered worldwide due to stigma, cultural factors, workforce and training limitations, and insufficient research investment. System-level strategies are needed to address these challenges and close the global PSO care gap. Funding: This study was supported by a seed grant from the Global Institute of Psychosocial, Palliative and End-of-Life Care (GIPPEC), Toronto, Canada.
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.