Objectives The objectives of this systematic review were to (a) identify supportive‐care (psychosocial/behavioral, pharmacological, complementary, or alternative) interventions that have been evaluated via randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve patient‐reported health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) among adults with brain tumors, (b) evaluate the quality of the intervention studies, and (c) evaluate if developed interventions have been efficacious at improving HRQoL, as compared with control conditions in RCTs. Methods This systematic review was conducted using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases were searched for RCTs of supportive‐care interventions for adults with brain tumors, primary or metastatic, that included a patient‐reported HRQoL outcome. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Results Ten RCTs involving 640 patients with either a primary or metastatic brain tumor investigating supportive‐care interventions with a HRQoL outcome were identified. In terms of quality, three of the studies received a “strong” rating, three received a “moderate” rating, and four of the studies received a “weak” rating. Only two of the interventions (ie, a home‐based psychosocial intervention and individualized acupuncture with standard rehabilitation) demonstrated improvements in HRQoL over control conditions. Conclusions HRQoL is of the utmost importance when treating patients with brain tumors. Yet there is a notable paucity of research to inform clinical decisions and evidence‐based practice. More high‐quality studies of interventions aimed at improving HRQoL are needed.

No abstract

Objective The aims of this study were to examine the factor structure and reliability of the multidimensional Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale in a sample of female cancer survivors during their reproductive years, younger than age 45. Methods Female reproductive‐aged survivors (N = 238; current age, 18 to 44 y) with a variety of cancer diagnoses completed a web‐based survey that included the RCAC scale. Three structural models were examined via confirmatory factor analysis: (a) one‐factor, (b) higher‐order with one second‐order factor and six first‐order factors, and (c) oblique six‐factor. Reliability was examined using omega total and Revelle omega total. Results Only the oblique six‐factor model of the RCAC scale fits well. Omega total and Revelle omega total estimates for all of the six three‐item subscales were in the nearly satisfactory to good range (.66 to.87). Conclusions The RCAC scale was found to have satisfactory factor structure and reliability when measuring a range of reproductive concerns experienced by female reproductive‐aged survivors. The RCAC scale is a multidimensional measure of varying aspects of reproductive concerns, and results suggest that the scale may be best represented as a profile of subscale scores. The subscale scores would be useful for tailoring recommendations and interventions to more effectively address the diverse reproductive concerns of female reproductive‐aged survivors.