ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Living with Cancer under watch and wait: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Watchful waiting, sometimes referred to as active surveillance or observation, is used across a range of cancer contexts to avoid or delay unnecessary treatment and its associated harms. Although this approach may reduce overtreatment, it can also place patients in the unusual position of living with a known cancer that is being monitored rather than immediately treated. This may have important psychological and social consequences. The aim of this review was to synthesize qualitative research exploring patients' experiences of watchful waiting across cancer contexts. Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis of published studies examining patients' experiences of watchful waiting. Systematic searches were undertaken across major electronic databases and supplemented by hand searching. Eligible studies used qualitative methods and focused on the experiences of adults living with cancer under a watchful waiting, active surveillance, or equivalent monitoring pathway. Included studies were appraised for methodological quality, and findings were analysed using thematic synthesis to generate descriptive and higher order analytical themes. Results: Twenty five studies were included, representing a range of cancer types and clinical pathways. Five overarching themes were identified. First, patients described complex emotional responses, including shock, fear, anxiety, uncertainty, and, for some, gradual adaptation over time. Second, decision making was shaped by perceptions of risk, beliefs about treatment, and varying degrees of trust in clinicians and healthcare systems. Third, social experiences were often marked by isolation, misunderstanding, stigma, and strain within family and intimate relationships, particularly where others struggled to understand distress in the absence of active treatment. Fourth, patients drew on a range of coping strategies, including reassurance from monitoring, peer support, information seeking, acceptance, and routines. Fifth, communication and supportive care emerged as central, with patients valuing clear explanations, continuity, validation, and opportunities to discuss uncertainty and emotional burden. Conclusion: Watchful waiting is not a passive experience. It can be psychologically demanding and socially complex, even when clinically appropriate. Cancer services should recognize the emotional burden associated with living with untreated but monitored disease and should proactively identify patients who may benefit from clearer communication, reassurance, and tailored psychological or peer support.
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.