Premium
Cancer survivors’ perspectives of dietary information provision after cancer treatment: A scoping review of the Australian context
Author(s) -
Barlow Katherine H.,
Pols Jolieke C.,
Ekberg Stuart,
Johnston Elizabeth A.
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
health promotion journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.515
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 2201-1617
pISSN - 1036-1073
DOI - 10.1002/hpja.496
Subject(s) - medicine , ethnic group , context (archaeology) , inclusion (mineral) , cancer , family medicine , gerontology , psychology , paleontology , social psychology , sociology , anthropology , biology
Issue addressed To support survivor‐centred care in Australia, this review maps current knowledge regarding adult cancer survivors’ perspectives of dietary information provision post‐treatment. Methods A scoping review of research conducted in Australia within the past decade reported using PRISMA‐ScR guidelines. Seven databases were searched (01/01/2009‐05/06/2020) and records were independently screened by two researchers using eligibility criteria. Papers in the peer‐reviewed literature with dietary information post‐treatment as a primary and secondary outcome were eligible for inclusion. Data charting included participant characteristics, study methodology and cancer survivors’ reports of dietary information provision post‐treatment. Results Of 531 records identified, 12 met eligibility criteria. Most studies included breast (58%) and colorectal (42%) cancer survivors within 5 years post‐diagnosis (84%). Three studies were conducted amongst specific ethnic groups (Indigenous Australians, Chinese‐Australians, Greek‐Australians). Participants in the included studies commonly reported limited or ineffective dietary information from healthcare providers post‐treatment. Cancer survivors identified a need for individualised information regarding dietary strategies to manage ongoing symptoms, professional support for weight management, and practical skills for healthy eating. Amongst ethnic groups, there was a need for dietary information that considers traditional foods and cultural beliefs, and is available in their native language. Cancer survivors valued ongoing dietary follow‐up and support post‐treatment, and suggested a variety of face‐to‐face and online delivery modes. Those residing in rural and remote areas reported barriers to accessing dietary information post‐treatment including time, cost, and availability of local services. Conclusions There is scope to improve dietary information provision after cancer treatment in Australia. So what? Dietary guidance post‐treatment should consider individual needs, cultural background, and opportunity for ongoing follow‐up and support.