4.5 Review

Factors that affect quality of life for older people with head and neck cancer: A systematic review

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING
Volume 63, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2023.102280

Keywords

Elderly; Head and neck cancer; Older; Quality of life; Systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article conducted a systematic review on the quality of life of older head and neck cancer patients. The results showed that older patients experience significant impacts on their quality of life due to the cancer, which also affects their treatment decision-making and post-treatment support.
ePurpose: Quality of life is a critical aspect in the management of older head and neck cancer patients. It needs to be considered alongside survival benefit, treatment burden, and longer-term outcomes. The purpose was to undertake a systematic review of empirical peer-reviewed studies with a primary focus on factors impacting quality of life for older head and neck cancer patients. Methods: A systematic review, searching 5 electronic databases (PsychoINFO, MEDLINE, CINHAL, Embase, and Scopus) using PRISMA methodology was conducted. Data was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and a narrative synthesis performed. Results: Only 10 papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two main themes emerged: 1) Impact of head and neck cancer on quality of life domains and 2) quality of life in treatment decision-making. Conclusions: In an era of progressive personalised care, there is an evident need for more qualitative and quantitative studies focusing on quality of life for older head and neck cancer patients. However, older head and neck cancer patients experience notable differences, especially with poorer physical functioning and greater eating and drinking challenges. Quality of life impacts older patients decision-making, treatment planning and intensifies post-treatment support.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available