Purpose Interest is growing in post-traumatic growth (PTG) after cancer prompted, in part, by observations of positive associations with health-related quality of life. Qualitative research provides valuable insight into survivors’ experiences. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative evidence on PTG in cancer, determining the number, nature, range and scope of studies, and gaps in the literature. Methods We systematically searched Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for qualitative research exploring positive changes after cancer published from 1996. From eligible studies, we extracted: terms used for PTG; design, methodological orientation, and techniques, and participant characteristics. Using descriptive mapping, we explored whether study findings fit within Tedeschi and Calhoun’s PTG framework, and evidence for unique positive changes post-cancer. Results Twenty-eight studies were eligible. Cancer sites included were: breast, 14; mixed, 6; haematological, 4; head and neck cancer, 2; bone, 1, and testis, 1. Multiple studies were conducted in: the USA (12), Australia (3), Iran (2), and the UK (2). Twenty-three studies collected data using individual interviews (21) or focus groups (2). Definitions of PTG varied. Studies largely focused on descriptive accounts of PTG. Findings mapped onto existing PTG dimensions; health behaviour changes were often reported, under ‘new possibilities’. Conclusions A range of PTG outcomes can occur after cancer. Positive health behaviour changes warrant further exploration. Future research should include more diverse patient populations, collect longitudinal data, and focus on pathways towards positive changes.

Background Effective screening can prevent cervical cancer, but many women choose not to attend their screening tests. Objective This study aimed to investigate behavioural influences on cervical screening participation using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and COM‐B models of behaviour change. Design A qualitative study and semistructured phone interviews were conducted with women invited for routine screening tests within the national cervical screening programme in Ireland. Setting and Participants Forty‐eight women aged 25–65 years were recruited from the national screening register. Results Seven core themes were identified that mapped to three COM‐B components and 11 TDF domains: (1) knowledge of cervical cancer and screening, (2) coping with smear tests, (3) competing motivational processes—automatic and reflective, (4) cognitive resources, (5) role of social support, (6) environmental influences and (7) perceputal and practical influences. A range of knowledge about screening, perceived risk of cervical cancer and human papillomavirus infection was evident. Factors that influenced screening behaviours may be hierarchical—some were assigned greater importance than others. Positive screening behaviours were linked to autonomous motivation. Deficits in physical and psychological capability (inadequate coping skills) were barriers to screening, while physical and social opportunity (e.g. healthcare professional ‘champions’) could facilitate participation. Older women raised age‐related issues (e.g. screening no longer necessary) and had more negative attitudes to screening, while younger women identified practical barriers. Conclusions This study provides insight into screening participation and will aid development of theoretically informed interventions to increase uptake. Patient or Public Contribution Women invited for screening tests through the national screening programme were interviewed. A Public & Patient Involvement (PPI) Panel, established to provide input into all CERVIVA research projects, advised the research team on recruitment materials and were given the opportunity to review and comment on the interview topic guide. This panel is made up of six women with various cervical screening histories and experiences.

Purpose Advances in treatment, including biological and precision therapies, mean that more people are living with advanced cancer. Supportive care needs likely change across the cancer journey. We systematically identified instruments available to assess unmet needs of advanced cancer patients and evaluated their development, content, and quality. Methods Systematic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, and PsycINFO were performed from inception to 11 January 2021. Independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Data was abstracted on instrument characteristics, development, and content. Quality appraisal included methodological and quality assessment, GRADE, feasibility, and interpretability, following consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results Thirty studies reporting 24 instruments were identified. These were developed for general palliative patients (n = 2 instruments), advanced cancer (n = 8), and cancer irrespective of stage (n = 14). None focused on patients using biological or precision therapies. The most common item generation and reduction techniques were amending an existing instrument (n = 11 instruments) and factor analysis (n = 8), respectively. All instruments mapped to ≥ 5 of 11 unmet need dimensions, with Problems and Needs in Palliative Care (PNPC) and Psychosocial Needs Inventory (PNI) covering all 11. No instrument reported all of the COSMIN measurement properties, and methodological quality was variable. Conclusions Many instruments are available to assess unmet needs in advanced cancer. There is extensive heterogeneity in their development, content, and quality. Implications for Cancer Survivors Given the growth of precision and biological therapies, research needs to explore how these instruments perform in capturing the needs of people using such therapies.

Purpose Low-grade glioma (LGG) patients may face health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) impairments, due to the tumour, treatment and associated side-effects and prospects of progression. We systematically identified quantitative studies assessing HRQoL in adult LGG patients, for: aspects of HRQoL impacted; comparisons with non-cancer controls (NCC) and other groups; temporal trends; and factors associated with HRQoL. Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, and PsycINFO were systematically searched from inception to 14th September 2021. Following independent screening of titles and abstracts and full-texts, population and study characteristics, and HRQoL findings were abstracted from eligible papers, and quality appraised. Narrative synthesis was conducted. Results Twenty-nine papers reporting 22 studies (cross-sectional, n = 13; longitudinal, n = 9) were identified. Papers were largely good quality, though many excluded patients with cognitive and communication impairments. Comparators included high-grade gliomas (HGG) (n = 7); NCCs (n = 6) and other patient groups (n = 3). Nineteen factors, primarily treatment (n = 8), were examined for association with HRQoL. There was substantial heterogeneity in HRQoL instruments used, factors and aspects of HRQoL assessed and measurement timepoints. HRQoL, primarily cognitive functioning and fatigue, in adult LGG patients is poor, and worse than in NCCs, though better than in HGG patients. Over time, HRQoL remained low, but stable. Epilepsy/seizure burden was most consistently associated with worse HRQoL. Conclusion LGG patients experience wide-ranging HRQoL impairments. HRQoL in those with cognitive and communication impairments requires further investigation. These findings may help clinicians recognise current supportive care needs and inform types and timings of support needed, as well as inform future interventions.

Despite the growing evidence base for supported self-management for the improvement of quality of life, there is a lack of widespread implementation of self-management interventions for cancer survivors. We propose five key areas that, if addressed, would optimise the development and evaluation of these interventions, namely: (1) improving intervention adaptability to different survivor populations; (2) establishing intervention acceptability (and feasibility); (3) ensuring systematic description of interventions, their content, and active ingredients; (4) conducting process evaluations; and (5) assessing cost-effectiveness. These areas are an essential prerequisite for translation of self-management interventions from research into routine cancer care.