• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一项关于影响老年人接受或拒绝癌症治疗决策的因素的系统评价。

A systematic review of factors influencing older adults' decision to accept or decline cancer treatment.

机构信息

Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

Cancer Treat Rev. 2015 Feb;41(2):197-215. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.12.010. Epub 2014 Dec 26.

DOI:10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.12.010
PMID:25579752
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a disease that affects mostly older adults. Older adults often have other chronic health conditions in addition to cancer and may have different health priorities, both of which can impact cancer treatment decision-making. However, no systematic review of factors that influence an older cancer patient's decision to accept or decline cancer treatment has been conducted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic review of the literature published between inception of the databases and February 2013. Dutch, English, French or German articles reporting on qualitative studies, cross-sectional, longitudinal observational or intervention studies describing factors why older adults accepted or declined cancer treatment examining actual treatment decisions were included. Ten databases were used. Two independent reviewers reviewed manuscripts and performed data abstraction using a standardized form and the quality of studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Of 17,343 abstracts reviewed, a total of 38 studies were included. The majority focused on breast and prostate cancer treatment decisions and most studies used a qualitative design. Important factors for accepting treatment were convenience and success rate of treatment, seeing necessity of treatment, trust in the physician and following the physician's recommendation. Factors important for declining cancer treatment included concerns about the discomfort of the treatments, fear of side effects and transportation difficulties.

CONCLUSION

Although the reasons why older adults with cancer accepted or declined treatment varied considerably, the most consistent determinant was physician recommendation. Further studies using large, representative samples and exploring decision-making incorporating health literacy and comorbidity are needed.

摘要

背景

癌症主要影响老年人。老年人除了癌症之外,通常还有其他慢性健康问题,并且可能有不同的健康优先级,这两者都会影响癌症治疗决策。然而,目前还没有对影响老年癌症患者接受或拒绝癌症治疗决定的因素进行系统评价。

材料与方法

对在数据库创建之初至 2013 年 2 月期间发表的文献进行系统评价。纳入报告定性研究、横断面研究、纵向观察性研究或干预性研究的荷兰语、英语、法语或德语文章,这些研究描述了为什么老年人接受或拒绝癌症治疗的因素,研究内容涉及实际的治疗决策。使用了 10 个数据库。两位独立的评审员使用标准化表格审查手稿并进行数据提取,并使用混合方法评估工具评估研究质量。

结果

在对 17343 篇摘要进行审查后,共有 38 项研究被纳入。其中大多数研究聚焦于乳腺癌和前列腺癌的治疗决策,并且大多数研究采用了定性设计。接受治疗的重要因素包括治疗的便利性和成功率、认为治疗有必要、对医生的信任和遵循医生的建议。拒绝癌症治疗的重要因素包括对治疗不适的担忧、对副作用的恐惧以及交通困难。

结论

尽管老年癌症患者接受或拒绝治疗的原因差异很大,但最一致的决定因素是医生的建议。需要使用大型、代表性样本进行进一步研究,以探索将健康素养和合并症纳入决策过程的治疗决策。

相似文献

1
A systematic review of factors influencing older adults' decision to accept or decline cancer treatment.一项关于影响老年人接受或拒绝癌症治疗决策的因素的系统评价。
Cancer Treat Rev. 2015 Feb;41(2):197-215. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.12.010. Epub 2014 Dec 26.
2
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.利用预后信息为乳腺癌患者选择辅助性全身治疗的成本效益
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340.
3
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.拓扑替康治疗卵巢癌的临床有效性和成本效益的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280.
4
The experience of adults who choose watchful waiting or active surveillance as an approach to medical treatment: a qualitative systematic review.选择观察等待或主动监测作为治疗方法的成年人的经历:一项定性系统评价。
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Feb;14(2):174-255. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2270.
5
Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.两种现代生存预测工具 SORG-MLA 和 METSSS 在接受手术联合放疗和单纯放疗治疗有症状长骨转移患者中的比较。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Dec 1;482(12):2193-2208. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003185. Epub 2024 Jul 23.
6
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.社区居住的老年人跌倒预防干预措施:系统评价和荟萃分析的益处、危害以及患者的价值观和偏好。
Syst Rev. 2024 Nov 26;13(1):289. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02681-3.
7
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].[容量与健康结果:来自系统评价和意大利医院数据评估的证据]
Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100.
8
Factors influencing adherence to cancer treatment in older adults with cancer: a systematic review.影响老年癌症患者坚持癌症治疗的因素:一项系统综述。
Ann Oncol. 2014 Mar;25(3):564-577. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt433. Epub 2013 Nov 26.
9
Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D in relation to bone health.维生素D对骨骼健康的有效性与安全性。
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007 Aug(158):1-235.
10
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.医疗专业人员在急症医院环境中团队合作教育的经验:对定性文献的系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.

引用本文的文献

1
Financial hardship, financial toxicity, and transportation challenges among older cancer survivors treated with curative-intent surgery.接受根治性手术治疗的老年癌症幸存者面临的经济困难、经济毒性和交通挑战。
Support Care Cancer. 2025 Apr 1;33(4):339. doi: 10.1007/s00520-025-09393-x.
2
Qualitative study to explore reasons for 'no-show' after diagnosis of breast cancer in a private teaching hospital in Kerala.一项定性研究,旨在探究喀拉拉邦一家私立教学医院中乳腺癌确诊后患者“未就诊”的原因。
J Family Med Prim Care. 2025 Feb;14(2):609-616. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_142_24. Epub 2025 Feb 21.
3
Patient and Family Caregiver Perspectives on Therapy De-Escalation in Cancer: A Scoping Review.
患者及家庭照顾者对癌症治疗降阶梯的看法:一项范围综述
Psychooncology. 2025 Feb;34(2):e70104. doi: 10.1002/pon.70104.
4
Age-related differences in staging, treatment and net survival in relation to frailty in adults with colon cancer in England: an analysis of the COloRECTal cancer data repository (CORECT-R) resource.英格兰成年结肠癌患者中与虚弱相关的分期、治疗及净生存率的年龄差异:来自结直肠癌数据储存库(CORECT-R)资源的分析
Age Ageing. 2025 Feb 2;54(2). doi: 10.1093/ageing/afaf025.
5
Considerations to forgo systemic treatment in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer: A real-world evidence study.晚期食管癌或胃癌患者放弃全身治疗的考量:一项真实世界证据研究。
Int J Cancer. 2025 May 15;156(10):1950-1960. doi: 10.1002/ijc.35314. Epub 2025 Jan 9.
6
The value and effectiveness of geriatric assessments for older adults with cancer: an umbrella review.老年癌症患者的老年评估的价值与有效性:一项伞状综述
BMC Geriatr. 2024 Dec 18;24(1):1001. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05607-9.
7
Socioeconomic and geographic variation in adjuvant chemotherapy among elderly patients with stage III colon cancer in Norway - a national register-based cohort study.挪威III期结肠癌老年患者辅助化疗的社会经济和地理差异——一项基于全国登记的队列研究
Res Health Serv Reg. 2024 Dec 17;3(1):21. doi: 10.1007/s43999-024-00057-7.
8
Decisions to decline breast screening and/or breast cancer treatment based on the potential harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment: a qualitative study.基于过度诊断和过度治疗的潜在危害而拒绝乳房筛查和/或乳腺癌治疗的决定:一项定性研究
BMJ Open. 2024 Dec 10;14(12):e089155. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089155.
9
Age differences in the treatment of lung cancer-a cohort study among 42,000 patients from Germany.年龄对肺癌治疗的影响:来自德国 42000 名患者的队列研究。
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2024 Nov 15;150(11):503. doi: 10.1007/s00432-024-06025-5.
10
Geographic and socioeconomic variation in treatment of elderly prostate cancer patients in Norway - a national register-based study.挪威老年前列腺癌患者治疗的地理和社会经济差异——一项基于全国登记的研究。
Res Health Serv Reg. 2024 May 15;3(1):8. doi: 10.1007/s43999-024-00044-y.