4.6 Article

Breast cancer information and support needs for women with intellectual disabilities: a scoping study

Journal

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 892-897

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.3500

Keywords

oncology; cancer; breast; intellectual disability; information

Funding

  1. Sheffield Hallam University Higher Education Initiative Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo examine the compass and nature of relevant research and identify gaps in the current evidence in order to determine the priority of future research about breast cancer and intellectual disability (ID). MethodsA scoping study that comprised of a consultation exercise with a wide range of key stakeholders (n=26) from one northern city (Sheffield) within the UK. ResultsThis study identified numerous gaps in the current evidence base. It highlighted a dearth of research that focuses specifically on the information and support needs of women with IDs (and their carers) across the breast cancer patient pathway. Within the interviews, whilst reasonable adjustments' were being made and there was evidence of good practice, they were neither strategic nor systematic. Participants suggested that future research should focus on devising protocols to advise on the legal, ethical and clinical imperatives so that clinical governance in this area is assured. ConclusionsThere remains a dearth of research or practice guidelines at every stage of the breast cancer care pathway for women with ID. This may arguably lead to late diagnosis, suboptimal treatment and management and overall survival rates for this group. Further research is needed to understand the specific information and support needs of both women with ID (and their formal and informal carers) through the breast care pathway and to identify appropriate protocols, strategies and interventions in order to address these. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available