SynthesisPsycho-oncology2026
Mapping Psychosocial Determinants for Cancer Onset: An Umbrella Review.
Synthesis in Psycho-oncology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the growing body of literature suggesting that psychosocial factors contribute to cancer susceptibility, the existing evidence remains heterogeneous, and it is unclear which domains show the most consistent associations. Systematically mapping this literature helps inform the integration of psychosocial factors into cancer risk assessment and management frameworks, alongside behavioural risk factors.
methodsTo synthesise existing evidence on psychosocial factors associated with cancer onset, we conducted an umbrella review within the EU-funded iBeChange project (ID:101136840). Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, PRISMA 2020 and SWiM guidelines, we included systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining psychosocial exposures in relation to cancer risk or incidence. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, and methodological quality was assessed using ROBIS.
resultsForty-one reviews were included. Across psychosocial domains, the consistency of evidence varied considerably. Depression showed the most robust low-risk-of-bias evidence, particularly for lung and overall cancer risk. Adverse childhood experiences showed high concordance across reviews with a dose-response gradient, though all reviews were rated at high risk of bias. Urbanicity, composite socioeconomic status, and anxiety showed moderate or variable patterns, while stressful life events, socioeconomic indicators, and coping strategies were characterised by low consistency and very high heterogeneity. Evidence for psychiatric diagnoses and psychological distress was limited to single reviews. Approximately one third of the included reviews were rated at low risk of bias.
conclusionsThis umbrella review identifies psychosocial domains that should be considered in relation to cancer risk, providing a foundation for expanding prevention models beyond traditional behavioural risk factors towards multidimensional, psychosocially informed approaches. Lower-consistency domains should not be prematurely dismissed, as current evidence gaps may reflect methodological limitations rather than true absence of effect. Further high-quality longitudinal studies are needed to clarify underlying mechanisms and support the integration of psychosocial factors into cancer prevention strategies.
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.