BackgroundThis study systematically reviewed the evidence on the influence of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer patterns of care; patients’ psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) outcomes; and how this may link to public health programs.MethodsMedline, EMBASE, ProQuest, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: included lung cancer patients and/or partners or caregivers and/or health professionals (either at least 80% of participants had lung cancer or were partners or caregivers of lung cancer patients, or there was a lung cancer specific sub-group focus or analysis), assessed stigma or nihilism with respect to lung cancer and published in English between 1st January 1999 and 31st January 2011. Trial quality and levels of evidence were assessed.ResultsEighteen articles describing 15 studies met inclusion criteria. The seven qualitative studies were high quality with regard to data collection, analysis and reporting; however most lacked a clear theoretical framework; did not address interviewer bias; or provide a rationale for sample size. The eight quantitative studies were generally of low quality with highly selected samples, non-comparable groups and low participation rates and employed divergent theoretical and measurement approaches. Stigma about lung cancer was reported by patients and health professionals and was related to poorer QOL and higher psychological distress in patients. Clear empirical explorations of nihilism were not evident. There is qualitative evidence that from the patients’ perspectives public health programs contribute to stigma about lung cancer and this was supported by published commentary.ConclusionsHealth-related stigma presents as a part of the lung cancer experience however there are clear limitations in the research to date. Future longitudinal and multi-level research is needed and this should be more clearly linked to relevant theory.

Objective: Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) assessments can assist health professionals to tailor their health practices to the individual needs of patients and improve patient care over time. The present study assessed prospective predictors of unmet supportive care needs in cancer patients over a six-month period.Methods: Participants were recruited from a regional cancer treatment centre in Australia and completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS) at recruitment (n 5 439; 61.4% response rate) and six months follow-up (n 5 396). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify predictors of change in unmet needs across each supportive care domain. Predictor variables were socio-demographic, treatment and psychosocial factors including depression, anxiety, social support, and patient satisfaction.Results: Unmet needs were reported by approximately two-thirds of patients at baseline and half of patients at six months follow-up. Having unmet needs at baseline was the strongest predictor of unmet needs at six months. Longer time since diagnosis was a consistent predictor of greater unmet needs, associated with change in physical/daily living, psychological and health system and information unmet needs over time. By contrast, a complex relationship was found in that patient satisfaction, psychosocial and treatment characteristics predicted higher needs in some domains and lower needs in others.Conclusions: Unmet supportive care needs persist over time and psychological needs may emerge later in the illness continuum. Interventions to meet the needs of longer term cancer survivors are needed and should closely articulate with reported supportive care needs.