Search

Background: Cancer is the leading cause of death among Hispanics/Latinos. Thus, understanding health-related quality of life (HRQOL) needs among this diverse racial/ethnic group is critical. Using Ferrell’s multidimensional framework for measuring QOL, we synthesized evidence on HRQOL needs among Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors. Methods: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, for English language articles published between 1995 and January 2020, reporting HRQOL among Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors in the USA. Results: Of the 648 articles reviewed, 176 met inclusion criteria, with 100 of these studies focusing exclusively on breast cancer patients and no studies examining end-of-life HRQOL issues. Compared with other racial/ethnic groups, Hispanics/Latinos reported lower HRQOL and a higher symptom burden across multiple HRQOL domains. Over 80% of studies examining racial/ethnic differences in psychological well-being (n = 45) reported worse outcomes among Hispanics/Latinos compared with other racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors were also more likely to report suboptimal physical well-being in 60% of studies assessing racial/ethnic differences (n = 27), and Hispanics/Latinos also reported lower social well-being relative to non-Hispanics/Latinos in 78% of studies reporting these outcomes (n = 32). In contrast, reports of spiritual well-being and spirituality-based coping were higher among Hispanics/Latinos cancer survivors in 50% of studies examining racial/ethnic differences (n = 15). Discussion: Findings from this review point to the need for more systematic and tailored interventions to address HRQOL needs among this growing cancer survivor population. Future HRQOL research on Hispanics/Latinos should evaluate variations in HRQOL needs across cancer types and Hispanic/Latino subgroups and assess HRQOL needs during metastatic and end-of-life disease phases.

Objective: Evidence suggests peer support (PS) is as an effective strategy for enhancing prevention and control of chronic and infectious diseases, including cancer. This systematic scoping review examines the range and variety of interventions on the use of PS across the cancer care continuum. Method: We used a broad definition of PS to capture a wide-range of interventions and characterize the current status of the field. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL to identify relevant articles published from January 2011 to June 2016. We screened the title and abstracts of 2087 articles, followed by full-text screening of 420 articles, resulting in a final sample of 242 articles of which the most recent 100 articles were reviewed (published June 2014 to May 2016). Results: A number of the recent intervention studies focused on breast cancer (32%, breast cancer only) or multiple cancer sites (23%). Although the interventions spanned all phases of the cancer care continuum, only 2% targeted end-of-life care. Seventy-six percent focused on clinical outcomes (e.g., screening, treatment adherence) and 72% on reducing health disparities. Interventions were primarily phone-based (44%) or delivered in a clinic setting (44%). Only a few studies (22%) described the impact of providing PS on peer supporters. Conclusion: PS appears to be a widely used approach to address needs across the cancer care continuum, with many opportunities to expand its reach.