Treatment burden in individuals living with and beyond cancer: A systematic review of qualitative literature

Abstract

Background

Individuals with cancer are being given increasing responsibility for the self-management of their health and illness. In other chronic diseases, individuals who experience treatment burden are at risk of poorer health outcomes. Less is known about treatment burden and its impact on individuals with cancer. This systematic review investigated perceptions of treatment burden in individuals living with and beyond cancer.

Methods and findings

Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched for qualitative studies that explored treatment burden in individuals with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer at any stage of their diagnostic/treatment trajectory. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted. Study quality was assessed using a modified CASP checklist. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021145601). Forty-eight studies were included. Health management after cancer involved cognitive, practical, and relational work for patients. Individuals were motivated to perform health management work to improve life-expectancy, manage symptoms, and regain a sense of normality. Performing health care work could be empowering and gave individuals a sense of control. Treatment burden occurred when there was a mismatch between the resources needed for health management and their availability. Individuals with chronic and severe symptoms, financial challenges, language barriers, and limited social support are particularly at risk of treatment burden. For those with advanced cancer, consumption of time and energy by health care work is a significant burden.

Conclusion

Treatment burden could be an important mediator of inequities in cancer outcomes. Many of the factors leading to treatment burden in individuals with cancer are potentially modifiable. Clinicians should consider carefully what they are asking or expecting patients to do, and the resources required, including how much patient time will be consumed.

Introduction

There is considerable and growing interest in the negative impact of treatment burden on health outcomes in chronic diseases [1–3]. Treatment burden is the workload of health care for people with chronic illness, and the impact that this has on functioning and well-being [4]. Individuals who become over-burdened by the workload of health care may disengage from self-management practices, leading to poorer patient outcomes [4–7]. Treatment burden is salient in the oncology setting as the responsibility for illness management and health recovery is shifting away from healthcare systems toward self-management by patients and their families [8–11].

Treatment burden research has particularly focused on “chronic diseases” such as cardiovascular diseases [5, 6, 12, 13], diabetes [14], and in multimorbidity [15–17]. Cancer is increasingly being recognised as a chronic disease, and treatment burden is likely to be of considerable importance in cancer [18]. Questionnaire studies have shown that individuals with multimorbidity, low levels of social support, and low health literacy may experience high levels of treatment burden after cancer [19–21]. It is plausible that treatment burden could be an important mediator of inequities in cancer outcomes, for example in individuals with reduced capacity for self-management due to socioeconomic deprivation [22] and in rural patients who face long travelling times [23].

The aim of this review is to investigate patient perceptions of treatment burden after a cancer diagnosis and to explore the impact of treatment burden on individuals living with and beyond cancer. The review focuses on breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers because they are the most common cancers globally [24], and encompass a range of symptoms, prognoses, treatment modalities, and late effects.

Methods

A systematic review of qualitative literature was conducted to identify, characterise, and explore lived experiences and perceptions of treatment burden in individuals living with and beyond breast, colorectal, prostate and lung cancer. The protocol for the review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021145601). An ENTREQ reporting checklist [25] for this systematic review is available in S1 Table.

Identification of studies

Treatment burden is a relatively recent concept, and it was considered unlikely at the outset that many studies would explicitly use the terms “treatment burden” or “burden of treatment” in the title, abstract, or index. To overcome this challenge, treatment burden theoretical models [4, 7, 13, 26], conceptual reviews [3, 6, 13, 18, 27], and measurement scales [16, 17, 28] were examined to identify examples of “work” or self-management behaviours that could be incorporated into database searches. A database search strategy (S1 Appendix) was devised in consultation with a senior medical librarian that encompassed terms relating to cancer, self-management behaviours, and qualitative research. Several iterations of the search strategy were tested, and search terms were refined to return studies relevant to the review question. Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched from the year 2000 onwards. Cancer treatments have evolved over time, and it was important that patient experiences reflected modern cancer treatment pathways.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarised in Table 1.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Titles and abstracts were imported into Proquest Refworks (https://refworks.proquest.com/) and duplicates removed. Titles and abstracts were reviewed independently by two authors (RA, JC, AK, EY, and VV). Full texts were retrieved for all studies which were judged by at least one author to be potentially eligible for inclusion. Full texts were reviewed independently by at least two authors and any disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third author.

Data extraction and synthesis

A data extraction form was designed in Microsoft Word to capture descriptive data about the paper, the key themes, messages, and main findings described by the original study authors. Verbatim participant quotations about treatment burden were also extracted. Data extraction was performed independently by at least two authors, and three authors (RA, LD, and AK) met to agree the final data extraction form for each study. A unified document containing the data extracted from all studies was circulated to the whole review team.

Study characteristics were summarised using descriptive statistics. Thematic synthesis [29] was used to synthesise qualitative study data. All authors met to discuss key findings and concepts that were present across multiple studies. Codes (short descriptive terms) were agreed, which represented meaningful concepts present across the studies. The lead author coded the extracted study data in NVivo version 12, noting similarities, differences, and relationships between the codes. Analytical themes were generated, discussed, and refined within the whole review team. The studies were also examined for any similarities or differences in treatment burden between different cancer types. Analytical themes (similar to third order interpretations in meta-ethnography [30]) remained true to the findings of the original studies but went beyond the original research to generate additional insights into concepts of treatment burden after cancer.

Quality assessment

Study quality assessment was undertaken independently by two authors (JC and EY) using a modified CASP checklist [31]. Areas of uncertainty or disagreement were resolved by discussion with a third author (LD). Studies were not excluded based on quality assessment.

Ethical considerations

No participant quotations were used in this review from any study without an explicit statement of ethical approval, and all quotations used in this review were published in a peer reviewed journal and already in the public domain.

Results

A PRISMA chart is shown in Fig 1. Database searches were carried out in June 2021 and returned 14,730 titles. Two additional records were identified through other sources. After 7375 duplicate titles were removed there were 7357 titles and abstracts. Of those, 119 full texts were judged to be potentially relevant to the review. In total, 45 original research articles met the inclusion criteria. An updated Medline search was carried out in May 2022. Three additional articles met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 48 original research articles in the final review.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Characteristics of included studies

Descriptions of the 48 original qualitative research articles, their study population and scope are given in S2 Table. Studies included individuals with breast cancer (n = 19, 39.6%) [32–50], colorectal cancer (n = 13, 27.1%) [51–63], lung cancer (n = 5, 10.4%) [64–68], and prostate cancer (n = 2, 4.2%) [69, 70]. Nine studies (18.8%) included individuals with a mix of cancer types [71–79]. The studies were conducted in the United States (n = 13, 27.1%) [33–35, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 63, 67, 72, 73, 79], UK or Ireland (n = 11, 22.9%) [36, 41, 51–53, 56, 71, 75–78], Canada (n = 7, 14.6%) [39, 50, 54, 61, 65, 69, 70], Taiwan (n = 4, 8.3%) [42, 57, 58, 66], Sweden (n = 4, 8.3%) [32, 55, 60, 74], China (n = 2, 4.2%) [37, 68], and Germany (n = 2, 4.2%) [40, 59]. The remaining five studies were conducted in Australia, Turkey, Thailand, Denmark, and Indonesia (each n = 1) [43, 44, 47, 62, 64].

The studies included 1250 participants (median 16, range 3 to 178 participants), and collected qualitative data through interviews (n = 33, 68.8%) [36–42, 44, 46–50, 52, 53, 55–58, 60–62, 64–68, 72–75, 77, 78], focus groups (n = 6, 12.5%) [32, 33, 45, 51, 54, 59], free text written responses (n = 1, 2.1%) [63], or a combination of approaches such as interviewing and focus groups, integration of diary, drawing methods, and free text responses (n = 8, 16.7%) [34, 35, 43, 69–71, 76, 79].

Analytical themes

The analytical themes and their relationships are summarised in Fig 2.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Theme one: The work of cancer and cancer management

Cancer management was compared to or described as “work” by participants. The wide-ranging work of cancer management is summarised in Table 2. The cancer experience was time-consuming and included cognitive work, practical work, and relational work. Participant quotations exemplifying the work of cancer management are presented in Table 3.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

The notion of cognitive work, or time spent thinking about cancer management, was present across most studies. Cancer was always present in the background, and effort was expended trying to engage in other meaningful activities to distract from cancer or to maintain a “positive mental attitude”.

Cognitive work also involved sense-making activities, such as reading about cancer or its treatment and assimilating personal medical records. Participants in several studies described additional time spent planning their activities to account for problematic symptoms or potential complications, for example, thinking about the location of toilets for those with unpredictable bowel symptoms or incontinence, or carrying medicines with them. Financial challenges associated with or caused by cancer and its treatment also required significant planning and administrative effort.

Individuals with cancer engaged in the practical work of attending appointments, taking medicines regularly, and managing symptoms. Examples included using wraps or manual lymphatic drainage to manage lymphoedema or making up weekly pill boxes to improve medication adherence. Many tasks involved a combination of practical and cognitive work, for example, concealing a stoma might involve planning what to wear, and then the practical tasks of using tape to mask the stoma. Several studies described participants making efforts to avoid the topic of cancer being raised by others during social or daily activities. Individuals were motivated to conceal physical signs of their cancer treatment to maintain a sense of identity and normality, to maintain their sense of physical attractiveness, and to mitigate social stigma or judgements about having cancer.

Relational work for those with cancer involved enlisting the support of others (such as healthcare professionals, friends, and significant others) to assist with the work of health management. Many studies [34, 37, 46, 47, 49, 59, 62, 65, 69, 76, 78] noted that cancer and cancer treatment altered the dynamics of personal relationships by reducing sexual intimacy or changing roles within relationships. For example, friends and loved ones had to take on caregiving roles, and individuals with cancer struggled to fulfil the family responsibilities they had valued prior to their diagnosis (e.g., looking after children, helping with household chores). It took significant effort to maintain important relationships during cancer treatment and beyond.

Theme two: Context, motivation and reward

A recurring finding across most studies was that cancer caused significant biographical disruption. It was not only a threat to life, but also threatened the individual’s sense of identity and current way of life, altering their sense of “normality”. Fear was a common response to cancer, including fear of death and fear of recurrence in cancer survivors. Cancer was associated with loss, including loss of physical functioning, loss of independence/increased reliance on others, loss of meaningful activities, financial loss, and loss of social relationships or changed relationship dynamics (exemplar quotations are in Table 3). Fear, the wish to prolong life or prevent recurrence, and the desire to maintain or re-establish personal identity/sense of normality were strong motivators for participation in the work of cancer management (see also Table 2).

Theme three: Resource management

Individuals used personal and healthcare system resources to manage cancer. Key personal resources were time; finances; existing knowledge and skills (such as communication skills, or the ability to find, assimilate, and appraise health information); and social networks. Most studies emphasised the importance of social support for psychological well-being and for delegating certain health care tasks (exemplar quotations are in Table 3) [34, 37, 42, 44–47, 49, 54, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 69, 76, 79].

Another less tangible personal resource was “energy”, which was a concept that was present across several studies [37, 42, 50, 63, 65, 66, 72, 79]. Energy was treated as a resource which had to be carefully managed. For example, one individual with problematic bowel symptoms and a stoma described the need to balance food intake to maintain energy, whilst trying to control the timing of bowel movements [63]. Others managed energy levels by pacing activities or altering routines/avoiding certain tasks (see exemplar quotation, Table 3).

Healthcare system resources that were particularly valued were healthcare professional time, expertise, supportive professional relationships, and the provision of clear and tailored information. Supportive contact with healthcare professionals was reassuring.

Theme four: Treatment burden as resource mismatch

Individuals were burdened by health care when there was a mismatch between the need for a specific resource and the availability or accessibility of that resource. The most prominent negative consequence of treatment workload (see Table 2 and exemplar quotations, Table 3) was that time expended undertaking health care work took away time available for meaningful family or personal activities/time spent with support networks [34, 46, 64, 68, 73].

Several studies [34, 44, 47, 48, 67, 75] discussed the impact of financial resources being depleted due to cancer. Paying for cancer-related expenses meant that some individuals were struggling to afford necessities, were in debt, had lost savings, or were experiencing worry. Balancing finances and managing material resources took time and energy (exemplar quotations, Table 3).

Healthcare services contributed to burden when they were difficult to access or navigate. Those from minority ethnic groups [34, 35] or experiencing language barriers, and individuals dealing with economic hardship [48, 75] faced particular barriers to accessing healthcare services (exemplar quotations are in Table 3).

Healthcare services also contributed to burden when individuals perceived that their healthcare professional lacked knowledge of a particular problem or was dismissive of their concerns [39, 49, 71, 78]. The idea of abandonment by the healthcare system was mentioned by participants in a number of studies [32, 39, 54, 60, 71], particularly at transition points in care such as discharge after an operation or discharge from specialist services.

The influence of cancer type and stage

There were many similarities in treatment burden across cancer types but also some differences. Severe and persistent symptoms contributed to treatment burden. Individuals with ongoing bowel symptoms, incontinence or stomas after colorectal cancer described embarrassment and social isolation [53, 55, 60, 61, 63], resulting in limited help and support from their social networks. Stigma, embarrassment, and self-blame were prominent findings in studies of individuals with lung cancer who smoked [64, 66, 68], and there were examples of individuals becoming socially isolated due to the perception of being judged negatively by peers [68].

Individuals with stomas, incontinence, and ongoing bowel symptoms after colorectal cancer discussed the practical difficulties of integrating physical exercise into their lives, despite acknowledging this as an important aspect of survivorship care [60, 61].

The perception of “abandonment” and lack of support from the health system was mentioned frequently in studies of breast cancer survivors with lymphoedema [39, 71, 78]. There was a sense that clinicians treating breast cancer were focused on improving prognosis, lacked knowledge of lymphoedema management, and under-estimated the negative impact of lymphoedema and its management on breast cancer survivors’ quality of life.

The finding that time spent on health care related activities was a source of burden was mainly noted in studies of patients with advanced and poor prognosis cancers [46, 64, 73]. Individuals who were aware of having limited life expectancies valued meaningful activities and perceived the time they spent on health care to be more burdensome.

Quality of included studies

Most studies were rated moderately good according to the modified CASP checklist (see S3 Table). A frequent finding was that the researcher had not reflected on their role or position and how this might have influenced their research. Some studies did not give detailed descriptions of individual participant demographics, for example, few studies listed individuals’ socioeconomic status, and some quotations were not labelled with the demographic details of the individual who made the statement. Some papers provided a lot of raw data and participant quotations with little attempt to synthesise this data within the paper. Three papers [50, 63, 66] did not make an explicit statement about receipt of ethical approval.

Discussion

Main findings

Living with and beyond cancer involves cognitive, practical, and relational work for patients and necessitates the use of a range of personal and healthcare system resources. Cancer management is often perceived positively, in terms of taking control, engaging in practices that could extend life or prevent recurrence, improving psychological well-being and returning to “normality”. Treatment burden occurs when resources are consumed, unavailable or difficult to access.

Chronic symptoms that persist after cancer treatment, such as bowel symptoms, lymphoedema, pain and fatigue contribute to treatment burden. Individuals who must carefully balance financial resources and those without strong social support networks or who have become isolated by their disease and its treatments are also particularly at risk of treatment burden. For those with advanced disease, time becomes more precious and is a valued resource. The consumption of time by health workload can be perceived as a burden.

Health system factors can contribute to perceptions of treatment burden when there are barriers to access, or when services do not meet individuals’ needs. Those facing language and economic barriers seem to be particularly at risk. The notion of “abandonment” at transition points in care emphasises that individuals require expert support with the work of self-management. The shift in responsibility for health care workload from professionals to patients at transition points may lead to patient burden.

Comparison with existing literature

Several theories and conceptual models have been used by researchers to better understand treatment burden across a range of conditions [4, 7, 8, 80, 81]. Our analysis involved a thematic approach that was not theory driven, however our findings do fit well with existing theory. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) [81] identifies factors that facilitate or prevent the incorporation of interventions into everyday life and has been used to understand how patients integrate illness management work into their lives. NPT describes coherence work, relational work, enacting work and reflecting work. These categories align closely with the cognitive, relational, and practical work outlined in this review.

The Theory of Patient Capacity describes the factors that can influence a person’s ability to manage their health [80]. This includes the biographical disruption associated with illness, the mobilisation of material and personal resources, and social functioning. Additionally, the realization of work is described as a driver for feeling successful and increasing confidence, and the environment in which health is managed is cited as an important influencer of patient capacity [80]. These factors align with our themes ‘context, motivation and reward’ and ‘resource management’.

The Cumulative Complexity Model explains how the balance between workload and capacity can influence outcomes, with illness and treatment burden increasing if workload outweighs capacity [7]. This aligns with our theme ‘treatment burden as resource mismatch’. We found that managing resource challenges (e.g., making trade-offs in energy used or pain endured to perform an activity, or deciding how to use finite financial resources) was a major source of work for individuals living with and beyond cancer.

Burden of Treatment Theory models the relationship between the patient, their social networks and health services [4]. This theory is echoed across all four of our themes, with cancer patients working hard to mobilize resources and interact with both their social networks and healthcare providers to perform the tasks of health management.

One strong theme in the cancer literature which does not seem to be as strongly echoed in reports of treatment burden in other diseases is the sense of fear associated with cancer. Fear of death and fear of recurrence were prominent in most of the studies reviewed, and self-management work takes place in this context. Indeed, individuals’ perceptions of severity and threat to life in cancer may serve as strong motivators for undertaking cancer-related health management. This may be one explanation for the mainly positive perceptions of the benefits of self-management activities (Table 2).

Multimorbidity contributes to treatment burden [82] but the management of comorbidities as a source of treatment burden did not feature as a prominent finding in any of the 48 studies reviewed here. This is surprising because over 75% of people with cancer have at least one other chronic medical condition [83] and most of the studies in this review set out with broad aims such as examining “challenges”, “concerns”, and “experiences” in individuals with cancer (see S2 Table). This review focused on cancer as an index condition, and many of the participants were experiencing significant ongoing cancer-related illness burden. Participants and researchers may have chosen to focus on cancer management in isolation.

Two reviews have specifically examined multimorbidity management in individuals with cancer [84, 85]. Cavers et al. [84] found that multimorbidity could increase the complexity of medicines management. Corbett et al. [85] found that the combination of old age and multimorbidity complicated self-management after cancer, and that older individuals prioritised the management of the health condition which was having the greatest negative impact on independent living [85]. It seems likely that multimorbidities compete for and consume finite personal resources and contribute to the “resource mismatch” that could lead to treatment burden in individuals with cancer.

A key finding in this review is that consumption of patients’ time can lead to treatment burden. There is increasing recognition of “time toxicity” in cancer care, which is conceptualised as time spent coordinating care and in frequent visits to healthcare facilities [86].

Some healthcare systems have introduced patient navigation and nurse case manager roles in which a dedicated person or team helps patients to navigate complex systems, coordinates care, and helps patients to manage transitions in care [87]. Navigators and case managers can improve patient satisfaction and measures of patient experience with their care [87, 88]. Evidence about their effectiveness on reducing hospitalisation, use of emergency services and overall cost effectiveness is less clear [87, 89]. This review suggests that coordinating care and visiting healthcare facilities form only a small part of the work of managing cancer. Patients’ time is consumed by cognitive, relational, and other practical processes related to cancer management. Many of these processes take place away from healthcare settings.

Strengths and limitations

The inclusion of 48 original research studies with over 1000 individual participants from 11 different countries allowed for a detailed exploration of the subject and provided new insights into treatment burden in cancer. The synthesis goes beyond a simple aggregation or summary of existing literature, developing key analytical themes and concepts which were consistently and repeatedly identified across different cancer types and in different settings. The use of at least two independent reviewers for screening and data extraction added rigour.

There were limitations to the review. Treatment burden is a relatively new concept in cancer care, and only one study was identified that specifically set out to examine treatment burden after cancer [64]. The results of this review are derived from heterogeneous studies, with wide ranging aims and scope. There is a risk that results and participant quotations from these studies have been taken out of context. However, the use of a specific definition of treatment burden at the outset of the review, along with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, ensured that all the included studies examined treatment burden. It was also reassuring that the same themes were present across diverse studies.

Breast and colorectal cancer were over-represented compared to lung and prostate cancer in this review. There may be specific aspects of prostate and lung cancer self-management work that have not been fully explored here. Furthermore, it was beyond the scope of this review to explore caregiver perceptions of treatment burden. Caregiver experiences are likely to give additional insights into treatment burden. This is an important avenue for further enquiry.

Implications for research and practice

Most of the resources needed to manage cancer, from finances to social networks and individual “energy”, are not fixed and are likely to change over time. The demands placed on patients and their families are also likely to change during different stages in the disease and treatment trajectory. Importantly, many of the factors identified in this review that contribute to treatment burden are potentially modifiable.

Healthcare professionals should be aware of treatment burden and should consider carefully what they are asking or expecting patients to do. There may be simple ways of reducing patient/caregiver workload, for example, conducting some consultations remotely (to reduce travel time), rationalising medication dosing regimens, and reducing the administrative burden of health care for patients. Formal, professional psychological support that addresses fear associated with cancer, and support with behaviour change could also reduce the cognitive workload of cancer self-management.

Financial toxicity during cancer care is likely to vary based on the levels of social inequality in a country, and in Government provision for health insurance and welfare benefits. It may be beyond individual health care practitioners to be able to influence welfare and economic policy, but it is essential that practitioners are aware that patients who face financial pressures during cancer treatment experience treatment burden, and that treatment burden can modify important health outcomes. Professionals should specifically ask about financial burden related to disease management and be able to sign post to relevant local resources.

A careful balance needs to be struck between the supportive, reassuring nature of frequent contact between patients and the healthcare system with the burden of time spent on health care. Data from this review suggest that individuals with distressing symptoms or symptoms that limit quality of life appreciate support from health care professionals, particularly during transition points in care, such as discharge from specialist clinic follow up. There may be an important role for planned review by specialist nurses and primary care practitioners around these transition points to minimise the sense of abandonment. Conversely, individuals with poor prognosis cancer consider time as a precious and scarce resource and professionals should consider how they might limit the demands made on patients’ time for health-related tasks. Future research might quantify the time spent on health care and the factors that influence this (e.g., rurality, multimorbidity, cancer type/stage/treatment received). Quantifying “time toxicity” could be an important step in understanding and reducing treatment burden after cancer.

Conclusions

Cancer management involves cognitive, practical and relational work for patients. Self-management work can be empowering and can give patients a sense of control over symptoms and disease outcomes. However, patients can become burdened by treatment when there is a mismatch between the personal and healthcare resources needed for health care work and their availability. Patients with limited financial resources, those who face barriers to accessing health system resources, and those with competing demands on their time may be particularly burdened by treatment. Treatment burden could be an important mediator of inequities in cancer outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286308.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Descriptions of the 48 original qualitative research articles included in the review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286308.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Modified CASP checklist used to quality assess the included articles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286308.s003

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. Medline search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286308.s004

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Melanie Bickerton, Information Consultant for Medicine and Biomedical Sciences for her assistance with database search strategies.

Citation: Adam R, Nair R, Duncan LF, Yeoh E, Chan J, Vilenskaya V, et al. (2023) Treatment burden in individuals living with and beyond cancer: A systematic review of qualitative literature. PLoS ONE 18(5): e0286308. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286308

About the Authors:

Rosalind Adam

Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3082-6578

Revathi Nair

Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Lisa F. Duncan

Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Esyn Yeoh

Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4565-4177

Joanne Chan

Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Vaselisa Vilenskaya

Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Katie I. Gallacher

Roles: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Institute of Health & Wellbeing, General Practice & Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8620-8758

References

1. Dobler CC, Harb N, Maguire CA, Armour CL, Coleman C, Murad MH. Treatment burden should be included in clinical practice guidelines. BMJ [Internet]. 2018 Oct 12 [cited 2023 Apr 18];363. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4065 pmid:30314981

2. Mair FS, Montori VM, May CR. Digital transformation could increase the burden of treatment on patients. BMJ [Internet]. 2021 Nov 25 [cited 2023 Apr 18];375. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2909 pmid:34824093

3. Mair FS, May CR. Thinking about the burden of treatment. BMJ [Internet]. 2014 Nov 10 [cited 2022 Jun 9];349:g6680. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6680 pmid:25385748

4. May CR, Eton DT, Boehmer K, Gallacher K, Hunt K, MacDonald S, et al. Rethinking the patient: Using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2014 Jun 26 [cited 2022 Jun 9];14(1):1–11. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-14-281 pmid:24969758

5. Gallacher K, May CR, Montori VM, Mair FS. Understanding Patients’ Experiences of Treatment Burden in Chronic Heart Failure Using Normalization Process Theory. Ann Fam Med [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 Jun 9];9(3):235. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3090432/ pmid:21555751

6. Gallacher K, Morrison D, Jani B, Macdonald S, May CR, Montori VM, et al. Uncovering Treatment Burden as a Key Concept for Stroke Care: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research. Vol. 10, PLoS Medicine. 2013.

7. Shippee ND, Shah ND, May CR, Mair FS, Montori VM. Cumulative complexity: a functional, patient-centered model of patient complexity can improve research and practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Oct 1;65(10):1041–51. pmid:22910536

8. Boehmer KR, Gallacher KI, Lippiett KA, Mair FS, May CR, Montori VM. Minimally Disruptive Medicine: Progress 10 Years Later. Mayo Clin Proc [Internet]. 2022 Feb 1 [cited 2023 Apr 18];97(2):210–20. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35120690/

9. Foster C, Fenlon D. Recovery and self-management support following primary cancer treatment. Br J Cancer [Internet]. 2011 Nov 11 [cited 2022 Jun 8];105(Suppl 1):S21. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3251956/ pmid:22048029

10. Howell D, Richardson A, May C, Calman L, Fazelzad R, Moradian S, et al. Implementation of self-management support in cancer care and normalization into routine practice: A systematic scoping literature review protocol. Syst Rev [Internet]. 2019 Jan 31 [cited 2022 Jun 8];8(1):1–10. Available from: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-0952-5

11. van Dongen SI, de Nooijer K, Cramm JM, Francke AL, Oldenmenger WH, Korfage IJ, et al. Self-management of patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review of experiences and attitudes. Palliat Med [Internet]. 2020 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Jun 8];34(2):160. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7433395/ pmid:32009565

12. Ridgeway JL, Egginton JS, Tiedje K, Linzer M, Boehm D, Poplau S, et al. Factors that lessen the burden of treatment in complex patients with chronic conditions: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence [Internet]. 2014 Mar 19 [cited 2023 Apr 18];8:339. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3964167/ pmid:24672228

13. Sav A, King MA, Whitty JA, Kendall E, McMillan SS, Kelly F, et al. Burden of treatment for chronic illness: a concept analysis and review of the literature. Health Expectations [Internet]. 2015 Jun;18(3):312–24. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.12046 pmid:23363080

14. Vijan S, Hayward RA, Ronis DL, Hofer T. BRIEF REPORT: The burden of diabetes therapy. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2005 20:5 [Internet]. 2005 May [cited 2023 Apr 18];20(5):479–82. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0117.x

15. Boyd CM, Wolff JL, Giovannetti E, Reider L, Weiss C, Xue QL, et al. Healthcare task difficulty among older adults with multimorbidity. Med Care [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Apr 18];52 Suppl 3(0 3). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24561750/ pmid:24561750

16. Eton DT, Yost KJ, shei Lai J, Ridgeway JL, Egginton JS, Rosedahl JK, et al. Development and validation of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS): a patient-reported measure of treatment burden. Quality of Life Research [Internet]. 2017 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Jun 9];26(2):489–503. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11136-016-1397-0 pmid:27566732

17. Tran VT, Montori VM, Eton DT, Baruch D, Falissard B, Ravaud P. Development and description of measurement properties of an instrument to assess treatment burden among patients with multiple chronic conditions. BMC Med [Internet]. 2012 Jul 4 [cited 2022 Jun 9];10(1):1–10. Available from: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-10-68 pmid:22762722

18. Sav A, McMillan SS, Akosile A. Burden of treatment among elderly patients with cancer: A scoping review. Healthcare (Switzerland) [Internet]. 2021 May 1 [cited 2023 Apr 18];9(5). Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC8160635/ pmid:34069688

19. Anderson RT, Eton DT, Camacho FT, Kennedy EM, Brenin CM, DeGuzman PB, et al. Impact of comorbidities and treatment burden on general well-being among women’s cancer survivors. J Patient Rep Outcomes [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Apr 18];5(1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33411204/ pmid:33411204

20. Eton DT, Anderson RT, Cohn WF, Kennedy EM, Sauver JL St., Bucknell BJ, et al. Risk factors for poor health-related quality of life in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: exploring the role of treatment burden as a mediator. Patient Relat Outcome Meas [Internet]. 2019 Mar [cited 2023 Apr 18];10:89. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC6432889/ pmid:30962731

21. Husebø AML, Dalen I, Richardson A, Bru E, Søreide JA. Factors influencing treatment burden in colorectal cancer patients undergoing curative surgery: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) [Internet]. 2021 Sep 1 [cited 2023 Apr 18];30(5). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33751695/ pmid:33751695

22. Rachet B, Ellis L, Maringe C, Chu T, Nur U, Quaresma M, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan. Br J Cancer [Internet]. 2010 Aug 10 [cited 2023 Apr 18];103(4):446–53. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20588275/ pmid:20588275

23. Carriere R, Adam R, Fielding S, Barlas R, Ong Y, Murchie P. Rural dwellers are less likely to survive cancer—An international review and meta-analysis. Health Place [Internet]. 2018 Sep 1 [cited 2023 Apr 18];53:219–27. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30193178/ pmid:30193178

24. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin [Internet]. 2021 May 1 [cited 2023 Apr 18];71(3):209–49. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21660 pmid:33538338

25. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2012 Nov 27 [cited 2022 Jul 13];12(1):1–8. Available from: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 pmid:23185978

26. Gallacher KI, May CR, Langhorne P, Mair FS. A conceptual model of treatment burden and patient capacity in stroke. BMC Fam Pract [Internet]. 2018 Jan 9 [cited 2022 Jun 9];19(1):1–15. Available from: https://bmcprimcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-017-0691-4

27. Sav A, Salehi A, Mair FS, McMillan SS. Measuring the burden of treatment for chronic disease: implications of a scoping review of the literature. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017 17:1 [Internet]. 2017 Sep 12 [cited 2023 Apr 18];17(1):1–14. Available from: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0411-8

28. Duncan P, Murphy M, Man MS, Chaplin K, Gaunt D, Salisbury C. Development and validation of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ). BMJ Open [Internet]. 2020 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Jun 9];8(4):e019413. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/4/e019413

29. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Dec 10;8(1):45. pmid:18616818

30. Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-Ethnography. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1988.

31. Long HA, French DP, Brooks JM. Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis: Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences [Internet]. 2020 Aug 6 [cited 2022 May 5];1(1):31–42. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/

32. Ahlstedt Karlsson S, Wallengren C, Olofsson Bagge R, Henoch I. “It is not just any pill”—Women’s experiences of endocrine therapy after breast cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019 May 1;28(3).

33. Allen JD, Savadatti S, Levy AG. The transition from breast cancer “patient” to “survivor.” Psychooncology [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Apr 22];18(1):71–8. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18613299/

34. Ashing-Giwa KT, Padilla G, Tejero J, Kraemer J, Wright K, Coscarelli A, et al. Understanding the breast cancer experience of women: A qualitative study of African American, Asian American, Latina and Caucasian cancer survivors. Psychooncology [Internet]. 2004 Jun 1 [cited 2022 Apr 22];13(6):408–28. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pon.750 pmid:15188447

35. Boykoff N, Moieni M, Subramanian SK. Confronting chemobrain: an in-depth look at survivors’ reports of impact on work, social networks, and health care response. J Cancer Surviv. 2009;3(4):223–32. pmid:19760150

36. Cahir C, Dombrowski SU, Kelly CM, Kennedy MJ, Bennett K, Sharp L. Women’s experiences of hormonal therapy for breast cancer: exploring influences on medication-taking behaviour. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2015 Nov 30;23(11):3115–30. pmid:25744290

37. Cheng H, Sit JWH, Cheng KKF. A qualitative insight into self-management experience among Chinese breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology [Internet]. 2017 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Apr 22];26(7):1044–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27620347/ pmid:27620347

38. Fu MR. Breast cancer survivors’ intentions of managing lymphedema. Cancer Nurs [Internet]. 2005 Nov [cited 2022 Apr 22];28(6):446–57. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16330966/ pmid:16330966

39. Greenslade MV, House CJ. Living with lymphedema: a qualitative study of women’s perspectives on prevention and management following breast cancer-related treatment. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2006 Sep;16(3):165–79. pmid:17523577

40. Hiltrop K, Heidkamp P, Breidenbach C, Kowalski C, Streibelt M, Ernstmann N. Conflicting demands, coping, and adjustment: A grounded theory to understand rehabilitation processes in long-term breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2021 Nov 1;30(11):1957–64. pmid:34272908

41. Jeffs E, Ream E, Shewbridge A, Cowan-Dickie S, Crawshaw D, Huit M, et al. Exploring patient perception of success and benefit in self-management of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2015 Apr 13;20:173–83. pmid:26338435

42. Kuo CY, Liang SY, Tsay SL, Wang TJ, Cheng SF. Symptom management tasks and behaviors related to chemotherapy in Taiwanese outpatients with breast cancer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2015 Dec 1;19(6):654–9. pmid:25959612

43. Liamputtong P, Suwankhong D. Breast cancer diagnosis: biographical disruption, emotional experiences and strategic management in Thai women with breast cancer. Sociol Health Illn [Internet]. 2015 Sep 1 [cited 2022 Apr 22];37(7):1086–101. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-9566.12282 pmid:25922881

44. Prabandari YS, Hartanti W, Syafriani , Widiastuti M, Witaningrum R, Hutajulu SH, et al. “Alas … my sickness becomes my family’s burden”: A nested qualitative study on the experience of advanced breast cancer patients across the disease trajectory in Indonesia. The Breast [Internet]. 2022 Jun;63:168–76. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960977622000741

45. Ridner SH, Rhoten BA, Radina ME, Adair M, Bush-Foster S, Sinclair V. Breast cancer survivors’ perspectives of critical lymphedema self-care support needs. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2016 Jun 1;24(6):2743–50. pmid:26810422

46. Schulman-Green D, Bradley EH, Knobf MT, Prigerson H, Digiovanna MP, McCorkle R. Self-Management and Transitions in Women With Advanced Breast Cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Oct 1;42(4):517–25. pmid:21444183

47. Şengün İnan F, Üstün B. Experiences of Turkish survivors of breast cancer: Neuman systems model perspective. Japan Journal of Nursing Science [Internet]. 2016 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Apr 22];13(4):466–77. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/ pmid:27225352

48. Sleight AG. Occupational engagement in low-income latina breast cancer survivors. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017 Mar 1;71(2). pmid:28218584

49. Sun Y, Shigaki CL, Armer JM. The influence of breast cancer related lymphedema on women’s return-to-work. Women’s Health. 2020;16. pmid:32293984

50. Vrkljan BH, Miller-Polgar J. Meaning of occupational engagement in life-threatening illness: a qualitative pilot project. Can J Occup Ther [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2022 Apr 22];68(4):237–46. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11680918/ pmid:11680918

51. Anderson AS, Steele R, Coyle J. Lifestyle issues for colorectal cancer survivors—Perceived needs, beliefs and opportunities. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2013 Jan;21(1):35–42. pmid:22773297

52. Appleton L, Goodlad S, Irvine F, Poole H, Wall C. Patients’ experiences of living beyond colorectal cancer: A qualitative study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2013 Oct;17(5):610–7. pmid:23394950

53. Desnoo L, Faithfull S. A qualitative study of anterior resection syndrome: The experiences of cancer survivors who have undergone resection surgery. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2006 Jul;15(3):244–51. pmid:16882120

54. Ho MY, McBride ML, Gotay C, Grunfeld E, Earle CC, Relova S, et al. A qualitative focus group study to identify the needs of survivors of stage II and III colorectal cancer. Psychooncology. 2016 Dec 1;25(12):1470–6. pmid:26387559

55. Jakobsson J, Idvall E, Kumlien C. The lived experience of recovery during the first 6 months after colorectal cancer surgery. J Clin Nurs [Internet]. 2017 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Apr 22];26(23–24):4498–505. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/ pmid:28231628

56. Kidd L, Kearney N, O’Carroll R, Hubbard G. Experiences of self-care in patients with colorectal cancer: A longitudinal study. J Adv Nurs. 2008 Dec;64(5):469–77. pmid:18764852

57. Lo PS, Lin YP, Hsu HH, Chang SC, Yang SP, Huang WC, et al. Health self-management experiences of colorectal cancer patients in postoperative recovery: A qualitative study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2021 Apr 1;51. pmid:33601194

58. Lu LC, Huang XY, Chen CC. The lived experiences of patients with post-operative rectal cancer who suffer from altered bowel function: A phenomenological study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2017 Dec 1;31:69–76. pmid:29173830

59. Ose D, Winkler EC, Berger S, Baudendistel I, Kamradt M, Eckrich F, et al. Complexity of care and strategies of self-management in patients with colorectal cancer. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017 Apr 10;11:731–42. pmid:28435231

60. Reinwalds M, Blixter A, Carlsson E. A Descriptive, Qualitative Study to Assess Patient Experiences Following Stoma Reversal After Rectal Cancer Surgery [Internet]. Vol. 63, OSTOMY WOUND MANAGEMENT ® 29 Management. 2017. Available from: www.o-wm.comFEATUREwww.o-wm.comFEATURE pmid:29324431

61. Saunders S, Brunet J. A qualitative study exploring what it takes to be physically active with a stoma after surgery for rectal cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2019 Apr 1;27(4):1481–9. pmid:30368673

62. Thomsen TG, Hølge-Hazelton B. Patients’ vulnerability in follow-up after colorectal cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2017;40(2):152–9.

63. McMullen CK, Hornbrook MC, Grant M, Baldwin CM, Wendel CS, Mohler MJ, et al. The greatest challenges reported by long-term colorectal cancer survivors with stomas. J Support Oncol. 2008;6(4):175–82. pmid:18491686

64. El-Turk N, Chou MSH, Ting NCH, Girgis A, Vinod SK, Bray V, et al. Treatment burden experienced by patients with lung cancer. PLoS One. 2021 Jan 1;16(1 January). pmid:33481895

65. Hamilton J, Butler L, Wagenaar H, Sveinson T, Ward KA, McLean L, et al. The impact and management of cancer-related fatigue on patients and families. Can Oncol Nurs J [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2022 Apr 22];11(4):192–8. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11842451/ pmid:11842451

66. Shih WMJ, Hsu HC, Jiang RS, Lin MH. Lived experience among patients newly diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma stage IV within one year. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2015;16(15):6633–8. pmid:26434887

67. Wickersham KE, Happ MB, Bender CM, Engberg SJ, Tarhini A, Erlen JA. Surviving with lung cancer: Medication-taking and oral targeted therapy. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap). 2014;35(2S). pmid:24702721

68. Zhang JM, Zhang MR, Yang CH, Li Y. The meaning of life according to patients with advanced lung cancer: a qualitative study. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2022;17(1). pmid:35103558

69. Milne JL, Spiers JA, Moore KN. Men’s experiences following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A qualitative descriptive study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008 May;45(5):765–74. pmid:17482192

70. White MA, Verhoef MJ. Decision-making control: Why men decline treatment for prostate cancer. Integr Cancer Ther. 2003 Sep;2(3):217–24. pmid:15035883

71. Barlow S, Dixey R, Todd J, Taylor V, Carney S, Newell R. “Abandoned by medicine”? A qualitative study of women’s experiences with lymphoedema secondary to cancer, and the implications for care. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2014 Oct 1;15(4):452–63. pmid:25146257

72. Goodwin JA. Older Adults’ Functional Performance Loss and Adaptation During Chemotherapy. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap). 2007 Nov 1;28(6):370–6. pmid:18068820

73. Hall ET, Sridhar D, Singhal S, Fardeen T, Lahijani S, Trivedi R, et al. Perceptions of time spent pursuing cancer care among patients, caregivers, and oncology professionals. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2021 May 1;29(5):2493–500. pmid:32935204

74. Lindquist H, Enblom A, Bergmark K. Self-care among female cancer survivors with secondary lymphedema: A qualitative study. Rehabilitation Oncology. 2015;33(1):51–7.

75. Timmons A, Gooberman-Hill R, Sharp L. “It’s at a time in your life when you are most vulnerable”: A qualitative exploration of the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis and implications for financial protection in health. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 11;8(11).

76. Walshe C, Roberts D, Appleton L, Calman L, Large P, Lloyd-Williams M, et al. Coping well with advanced cancer: A serial qualitative interview study with patients and family carers. PLoS One. 2017 Jan 1;12(1).

77. Webber K, Davies AN, Cowie MR. Breakthrough pain: A qualitative study involving patients with advanced cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2011 Dec;19(12):2041–6. pmid:21181210

78. Williams AF, Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ. A phenomenological study of the lived experiences of people with lymphoedema. Int J Palliat Nurs [Internet]. 2013 Sep 28 [cited 2022 Apr 22];10(6):279–86. Available from: https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/ pmid:15284623

79. Wu HS, McSweeney M. Cancer-related fatigue: “It’s so much more than just being tired.” European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2007 Apr;11(2):117–25.

80. Boehmer KR, Gionfriddo MR, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Dabrh AMA, Leppin AL, Hargraves I, et al. Patient capacity and constraints in the experience of chronic disease: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMC Fam Pract [Internet]. 2016 Sep 1 [cited 2023 Apr 18];17(1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27585439/ pmid:27585439

81. Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, et al. Normalisation process theory: A framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med [Internet]. 2010 Oct 20 [cited 2023 Apr 18];8(1):1–11. Available from: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-8-63 pmid:20961442

82. Eton D, Ramalho de Oliveira D, Egginton J, Ridgeway J, Odell L, May C, et al. Building a measurement framework of burden of treatment in complex patients with chronic conditions: a qualitative study. Patient Relat Outcome Meas [Internet]. 2012 Aug [cited 2023 Apr 18];3:39. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23185121/ pmid:23185121

83. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2023 Apr 18];380(9836):37–43. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22579043/ pmid:22579043

84. Cavers D, Habets L, Cunningham-Burley S, Watson E, Banks E, Campbell C. Living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: a qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesis. J Cancer Surviv [Internet]. 2019 Feb 15 [cited 2023 Apr 18];13(1):148–59. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30685822/ pmid:30685822

85. Corbett T, Cummings A, Calman L, Farrington N, Fenerty V, Foster C, et al. Self-management in older people living with cancer and multi-morbidity: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. Psychooncology [Internet]. 2020 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Apr 18];29(10):1452–63. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32596985/ pmid:32596985

86. Gupta A, Eisenhauer EA, Booth CM. The Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2022 May 20;40(15):1611–5. pmid:35235366

87. Duan-Porter W, Ullman K, Majeski B, Miake-Lye I, Diem S, Wilt TJ. Care Coordination Models and Tools-Systematic Review and Key Informant Interviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;37(6):1367–79. pmid:34704210

88. Gorin SS, Haggstrom D, Han PKJ, Fairfield KM, Krebs P, Clauser SB. Cancer Care Coordination: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 30 Years of Empirical Studies. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2017 Aug 6;51(4):532–46.

89. Tho PC, Ang E. The effectiveness of patient navigation programs for adult cancer patients undergoing treatment: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Feb;14(2):295–321. pmid:27536800