Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

The psychosocial determinants of quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a scoping review

BMC Cancer volume 20, Article number: 948 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Breast cancer care today involves state-of-the-art biomedical treatment but can fail to address the broader psychosocial and quality-of-life (QoL) issues associated with the transition to breast cancer survivorship. This scoping review examines the evidence on the influence of psychosocial determinants on QoL in breast cancer survivors.

Methods

Scoping review methodology was used to: (1) identify the research question(s); (2) identify relevant studies; (3) undertake study selection; (4) extract data; (5) collate, summarise and report the results.

Results

A total of 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were conducted in the US (n = 22, 67%) and were mainly cross-sectional (n = 26, 79%). Sixteen psychosocial determinants of QoL were identified. Social support (n = 14, 42%), depression (n = 7, 21%) and future appraisal and perspective (n = 7, 21%) were the most frequently investigated determinants. Twelve different QoL measures were used. A range of different measurement tools were also used per psychosocial determinant (weighted average = 6). The 14 studies that measured the influence of social support on QoL employed 10 different measures of social support and 7 different measures of QoL. In general, across all 33 studies, a higher level of a positive influence and a lower level of a negative influence of a psychosocial determinant was associated with a better QoL e.g. higher social support and lower levels of depression were associated with a higher/better QoL. For some determinants such as spirituality and coping skills the influence on QoL varied, but these determinants were less commonly investigated.

Conclusion

Consensus around measures of QoL and psychological determinants would be valuable and would enable research to determine the influence of psychosocial determinants on QoL adequately. Research in other healthcare settings beyond the US is required, in order to understand the influence of organisation and follow-up clinical and supportive care on psychosocial determinants and QoL and to improve the quality of care in breast cancer survivors.

Peer Review reports

Background

In recent years, with earlier diagnosis and better treatment options, breast cancer survival in women has increased steadily and 5-year net survival in high income countries is now 85–90% [1]. This means that millions of women worldwide are now living with, and beyond, a breast cancer diagnosis; the 5 year prevalence of breast cancer is approximately seven million globally [2, 3]. The concept of breast cancer survivorship encompasses the wider physical, psychological, social and economic issues of breast cancer [4, 5]. The transition from breast cancer patient to breast cancer survivorship brings numerous uncertainties for women [6]. The end of hospital-focused cancer treatment typically includes the loss of the safety net of active medical treatment, a resumption or alteration of former roles within and outside the home, a decline in interpersonal support and ongoing physical and psychological effects of diagnosis and treatment, such as fatigue, sleep disturbance, sexual dysfunction, urinary/bowel problems, and cognitive problems [7, 8]. However, while breast cancer care today often provides state-of-the-art biomedical treatment, it can fail to address the broader psychosocial and quality-of-life (QoL) issues associated with survivorship [9].

Psychosocial factors have been defined as any exposure that may influence a physical health outcome through a psychological mechanism [10]. Psychosocial factors can include depression and other emotional problems, psychological traits and disruptions in the social environment, all of which can compromise the effectiveness of health care and adversely impact breast cancer survivors’ return to good health [9]. Major depression, for example, is substantially more common in people with cancer than the general population and mostly goes untreated in the outpatient setting [11]. There is some evidence that psychosocial factors are associated with impairments in QoL in breast cancer survivors [8]. High social isolation and lack of social support have been reported to be associated with a lower QoL in breast cancer survivors [12]. In contrast, personality attributes such as optimism (i.e. general expectancy for positive outcomes) and use of active coping strategies such as problem solving, identifying benefits in the experience and expressing cancer-related emotions are all associated with greater psychological adjustment and an improved QoL [13].

Some studies have indicated that breast cancer survivors have a significantly lower QoL, including lower physical, functional, emotional and social well-being compared to control-matched healthy populations and experience clinically relevant restrictions in several QoL dimensions 10 years after diagnosis, with restrictions in role, cognitive and social functioning and fatigue increasing over time [12, 14]. While other studies have found that 10 years after diagnosis, many women report having a new meaning to their lives and healthier lifestyles, with long-term survivors having similar or improved QoL levels when compared to age-matched controls who have never had breast cancer [15, 16]. To inform survivorship care planning, it would be valuable to better understand which psychosocial factors are associated with improved or worsened QoL in breast cancer survivorship. Such an understanding would inform evidence-based psychosocial care and enable the development of targeted interventions to enhance QoL and reduce long term psychological and physical morbidity [6, 17]. This scoping review, therefore, examines the evidence on the influence of psychosocial determinants on QoL in breast cancer survivors.

Methods

This scoping review seeks to identify the current literature published in this field, examine how the research was conducted and identify the key factors related to this topic and gaps in knowledge [18]. The scoping review framework of Arksey and O’Malley [19] and later advanced by Levac, Colquhoun [20] was used to guide the current study. This framework includes five stages: (1) identifying the research question(s); (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) data extraction; (5) collation, summarising and reporting the results [19].

Identifying the research question

This scoping review was developed to describe the nature, number and scope of published research articles measuring the association between psychosocial determinants and QoL in breast cancer survivors.

Identifying relevant studies

A systematic literature search of the databases, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was conducted of all articles published between 01/01/1998 and 31/12/2018. The electronic search strategy included MeSH headings, key words and their derivatives “breast cancer, survivor, quality of life” (Appendix). The terms and the search criteria were developed and tested with a medical librarian. All articles were downloaded into Endnote and duplicates were removed.

Study selection

The titles and abstracts of all identified studies were screened by an independent team of reviewers. One reviewer independently applied the inclusion criteria (Table 1) to each abstract and a random sample of 75% of the abstracts were reviewed independently by a second reviewer. The review team met to compare screened abstracts and any differences were resolved through consultation with a third reviewer.

Table 1 Study inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

The inclusion criteria were then refined and a more detailed set of criteria was developed for the full text review process (Table 1). The breast cancer survivorship definition was refined to only include women who had completed their hospital-focused breast cancer treatment e.g., women had to be post-surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments (if applicable). The criteria for the QoL measure was refined to include only validated measures of overall QoL (e.g. FACT-B, EORTC QLQ-C30) [21, 22]. At least one of the psychosocial determinants measured had to be potentially modifiable (e.g. depression, social support). Two reviewers independently reviewed the full texts of all the identified abstracts using these more detailed inclusion criteria. The reference lists of eligible studies were also reviewed to identify any further studies that had been missed in the electronic searches.

Data extraction

After reading the full-texts of each study to be included in the review, two researchers independently extracted the following data: author(s), year of publication, study design, study location, participant characteristics, time period, psychosocial determinant(s) and how they were measured, QoL outcome and how it was measured and the main findings and any adjustments for covariates. Data was initially extracted from the first 5 studies and compared by the two reviewers to ensure consistency.

Collating and summarising the data

The data from the included studies was collated by both psychosocial determinants and QoL measures to provide both a descriptive and numerical summary of the findings and to answer the following four research questions;

  1. 1.

    What are the main psychosocial determinants of QoL in breast cancer survivors that have been investigated to date?

  2. 2.

    What are the most frequently used measurement tools to assess QoL in breast cancer survivors?

  3. 3.

    Which psychosocial determinants measurement tools were used and how frequently were they used per individual QoL measures?

  4. 4.

    What is the influence of these psychosocial determinants on QoL in breast cancer survivors?

Results

Study population

The study selection process is outline in Fig. 1. The four databases yielded 7516 citations, which reduced to 6071 after removing duplicates. Of these, 58 full-texts were deemed potentially eligible and reviewed in full text. Of these, 33 studies were eligible for inclusion in this scoping review.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram of selection of studies

Full size image

The majority of included studies (n = 26, 79%) employed a cross-sectional design; the remaining 7 studies (21%) assessed and compared QoL at various different time points post diagnosis e.g. short term at 6, 12 and 18 months [23, 24], medium term 2–4 years [25,26,27] and longer term 5–13 years later [13, 28]. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 22, 67%), with the remainder from China (n = 3, 9%), Germany (n = 2, 6%), and single studies in Australia, Taiwan, Malaysia, Japan, Korea and Austria respectively. Sample size ranged from 51 to 2671 participants; the average was 418 [29, 30]. The average age of participants was mid-40s to mid-50s, but ranged from 18 years to 96 years. The time period since completing breast cancer treatment varied greatly; some studies assessed the psychosocial determinants of QoL 6 months to 1 year post-treatment [28, 31], while other studies included participants who completed treatment up to 35 years previously [32].

Identifying psychosocial determinants of QoL in breast cancer survivors

The eligible studies reported on 16 possible psychosocial determinants of QoL (Table 2). The most prevalent psychosocial determinants investigated were social support (investigated in 14 studies), depression (7 studies) and future appraisal and perspective (7 studies). Five studies assessed coping, optimism and stress determinants and 4 studies assessed spirituality. Three studies looked at anxiety, confidence and self-efficacy and impact of events. Two studies investigated post-traumatic growth and there were single studies for positive and negative affect, cognitive symptoms, work limitations and health care system factors.

Table 2 Psychosocial determinants of QoL in breast cancer survivors
Full size table

QoL measures

There were 12 different validated QoL outcome measures utilised by the various studies in the scoping review (Table 3). The Functional Assessment of Cancer - Breast Cancer (FACT-B) was the most frequently used QoL measure (13 studies) [23,24,25,26, 30, 33, 35, 38, 41, 47,48,49, 54]. Two studies applied the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General (FACT-G), without the Breast Cancer Subscale (BC Subscale) [31, 42]. The SF-36 was used in 8 studies [27, 33, 36, 37, 47, 50, 52, 53]. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was used to assess QoL in 6 studies [28, 29, 43,44,45, 56] and EORTC QLQ-BR23 in 3 studies [29, 42, 44]; with 2 of these studies using both the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 [29, 44]. Three studies applied the Quality of Life Index Cancer Version (QLI-CV) [32, 39, 51]. The remaining QoL measures were used less frequently (≤ 2 studies). Seven studies (21%) used more than one measure of QoL as an outcome [29, 33, 41, 42, 44, 47, 52].

Table 3 Frequency of QoL measures
Full size table

Frequency of psychosocial determinants measurement tools per individual QoL measures in breast cancer survivors

A range of different measurement tools were used per psychosocial determinant (Table 4). There were 10 different measures of social support used in 14 studies, with the Medical Outcomes Survey (MOS) Social Support Survey and the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) used most frequently (3 studies respectively). The majority of measurement tools were used in only 1 or 2 studies. Table 5 presents the frequency of the individual psychosocial determinant measures per individual QoL measure. The 14 studies that measured the influence of the determinant social support employed 10 different measures of social support and 7 different measures of QoL. The MOS Social Support Survey was used to measure social support in 3 different studies but only 2 of these studies used the same QoL measure [23, 33]. Similarly depression was measured by 4 different measures and its influence was assessed using 4 different QoL measures. While future appraisal and perspective was measured in 7 studies using 8 different measures and 6 different QoL measures; only 2 studies used the same measure for the determinant (uncertainty in illness) and QoL [32, 51].

Table 4 Description and frequency of psychosocial measures
Full size table
Table 5 Frequency of psychosocial determinant measures per individual QoL measure
Full size table

Assessing the influence of the psychosocial determinants on QoL in breast cancer survivors

Among the studies that investigated social support, the general conclusion was that low perceived support was associated with a worse QoL [35, 41, 56] and higher levels of support were associated with better QoL [13, 23, 28, 32, 34, 37, 38]. Three studies found that the influence of social support on QoL varied by the type of support e.g. appraisal, belonging [36, 39]. Only 2 studies found no association between social support and QoL [26, 33].

For depression, 6 studies showed an inverse relationship with higher/lower levels of depression associated with a lower/higher QoL [23, 24, 26, 31, 42, 44] and one study found no association [43]. Out of the 7 studies that investigated future appraisal and perspectives, fear/worry about cancer recurrence was associated with a lower QoL in 4 studies [26, 29, 30, 52]. Higher uncertainty about illness was found to be associated with a lower Qol in 2 studies [32, 51] and appraisal of illness was also shown to mediate the influence of concerns and optimism on women’s QoL in one study [38].

The 5 studies that looked into coping generally found that the most relevant aspect of coping was the type of coping strategy one used, with disengagement, self-distraction, keeping to self and wishful thinking all having a negative association with QoL [28, 41, 47]. In general higher utilisation of active coping and lower utilisation of passive coping were positively associated with QoL [23, 25, 41]. Four of the 5 studies that assessed the role of optimism on QoL found that higher levels of optimism were positively associated with QoL [13, 23, 28, 50]; the remaining study was null [38]. All 5 studies that investigated stress found that greater psychological stress, symptom distress and life burden were associated with a lower QoL [33, 35, 38, 47, 54].

The 4 studies that examined the association between faith or spirituality and QoL had mixed findings. One study found that women with greater spiritual beliefs were more likely to have a lower emotional QoL [26], and another study reported that spiritual struggles were associated with lower QoL [48]. The other 2 studies concluded that higher rates of engagement with faith and spirituality had a positive impact on QoL [23, 49].

For the 3 studies that assessed anxiety, 2 studies reported that higher anxiety was associated with a lower QoL [31, 45] while the remaining study found a null association [43]. In 3 individual studies higher confidence, self-efficacy and self-esteem were each found to be associated with higher QoL [13, 35, 39]. Higher frequency of intrusive thoughts in 2 studies [23, 37] and a perceived negative impact of cancer in 1 study were associated with a lower QoL [53].

Two studies found that higher scores for posttraumatic growth were associated with a higher QoL [27, 54]. While higher scores on negative affect and cognitive limitations were found to be associated with a lower QoL [43, 46]. Work limitations were reported to have no significant impact on QoL [43]. The one study on health care system determinants found that a positive patient-doctor relationship was associated with better psychological well-being, while diagnostic care delay was associated with lower physical well-being in some ethnic groups [33].

Discussion

This review confirms that there are numerous psychosocial determinants that are associated with QoL in breast cancer survivors. The psychosocial determinants investigated most frequently were social support, depression and future appraisal and perspective. There was less research undertaken on societal determinants, such as healthcare system factors, work limitations etc. In general, across all the 33 articles included in this review, a higher level of a positive influence and a lower level of a negative influence of a psychosocial determinant was associated with a better QoL e.g. higher social support and lower levels of depression were found to be associated with a higher/better QoL. There were some determinants such as spirituality and coping were the influence on QoL was mixed or it varied, depending on which aspect of the determinant was measured e.g. type of coping strategy; but these determinants were also less commonly investigated.

This review also identified a range of gaps and limitations in the current literature and areas for further research. The majority of studies were cross-sectional and assessed the influence of psychosocial determinants on QoL at a single point in time. It is possible that the influence of psychosocial determinants on QoL may vary over time. A US study of breast cancer survivors found that when worry about recurrence increased over time (4 years after diagnosis), women were more likely to report a decline in emotional well-being. On average, there was a gradual lessening of worry as the years of survivorship increased, but some women reported greater worry at 4 years than they did shortly after primary treatment was completed [26]. The majority of the studies were undertaken in North America and the findings may not be transferable to other countries, with differing health care systems and cultures.

There is also considerable variation in the type of measures being used to assess both QoL and the individual psychosocial determinants across studies. There were 12 different QoL measures utilised across the 33 studies. Some of the QoL measures were breast cancer specific (FACT-B), some were cancer focussed (though not specific to a particular cancer; EORTC QLQ-C30) and some were generic (SF36) and hence may not have focussed on the same aspects of QoL aspects. Thus findings may not be comparable. A systematic review of QoL instruments in long-term breast cancer survivors identified only three instruments (QLACS, QLI-CV, QOL-CS) that evaluated all four domains of QoL (physical, psychological, social and spiritual) [107]. These instruments were only used in 5 studies in the current review (Table 3). Similarly, this review identified that on average 6 different measures were used per psychosocial determinant, making comparability of findings difficult.

While the findings provide evidence of a relationship between individual psychosocial determinants and QoL, they are not conclusive. Across the 34 studies there was only ever a maximum of 2 studies where results could be directly compared and this was only feasible for 6 determinants; social support, anxiety, coping, spirituality, optimism and future perspectives and appraisal. (Table 5) The clinical relevance of the possible effects of the determinants on QoL is also difficult to interpret. Differences in QoL should be compared to the minimal important difference for the various QoL measures, if known e.g. estimated to be in the range of 3–8 points for the FACT-B [108, 109]. It is also possible given the breadth in definition of a “psychosocial determinant”, that there are a range of other determinants whose influence on QoL has yet to be measured in studies e.g. motivation, goals. A recent systematic review identified that cancer may impact patients’ life goals and life goal disturbance may be related to poorer psychological outcomes but further studies are required [110].

This is the first scoping review of the psychosocial determinants of QoL in breast cancer survivors. However there were some limitations to this review process. It is feasible that despite an extensive search of multiple databases, some relevant papers may have been missed. Not all abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers; 75% were screened. However the adaption of the inclusion/exclusion criteria by the two independent reviewers as part of the scoping review iterative process allowed for a more focused review by alleviating any potential ambiguity, given the broad research question [20]. There was also no quality appraisal or meta-analysis of the included studies undertaken, but again is not deemed to be part of the scoping review process [19].

Recently there has been an emphasis on developing more patient-centered care in breast cancer survivors and using an individual’s psychological needs as a guide for psychosocial treatment selection rather than their diagnostic or medical treatment [111]. Understanding the influence of psychosocial determinants on QoL in breast cancer survivors potentially helps to enable the development of more personalised and tailored intervention strategies and support services to reduce long term physical and psychological morbidity. The identified psychosocial determinants can be mapped to evidence based psychosocial treatments such as Cognitive and Behavioral Cancer Stress Management to provide patients with skills to live well with breast cancer and/or improve QoL [112].

Conclusion

This review has identified several psychosocial determinants of QoL in breast cancer survivors. The overall consistency of the associations found between the various psychosocial variables and QoL, regardless of the measures used, provides a reasonably clear picture of the influence of individual psychosocial determinants on QoL in breast cancer survivors. The fact that these associations do not depend on the specific measures used adds validity to the findings. However this review has also highlighted a clear need to standardise measures of both QoL and individual psychosocial determinants, potentially through expert consensus groups, in order to be able to evaluate the impact of psychosocial determinants on QoL systematically and to compare results across studies. Further research also needs to be undertaken in health care settings, outside of the USA; given that psychosocial determinants and QoL itself may in fact be influenced by the organisation and availability of follow-up clinical and supportive care. Future studies should also use a prospective or longitudinal design to monitor change and understand the complexity and variety of influences on QoL long-term. By improving the quality of evidence on this topic there is the potential to also improve the quality of follow-up care in breast cancer survivors.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Abbreviations

QoL:

Quality-of-life

FACT-B:

Functional Assessment of Cancer - Breast Cancer

FACT-G:

Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General

SF-36:

Medical Outcomes Study Short Form

EORTC QLQ-C30:

The European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire

QLQ-BR23:

The European Organisation of Research and Cancer Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire - Breast Cancer

QLI-CV:

Quality of Life Index - Cancer Version

QoL-M:

Quality of Life Measurement

QLACS:

Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors

QOL-CS:

Quality of Life Cancer Survivor Version

GLSS:

Global Life Satisfaction Scale

References

  1. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, Harewood R, Matz M, Niksic M, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018;391(10125):1023–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Sharp L, Deady S, Gallagher P, Molcho M, Pearce A, Alforque Thomas A, et al. The magnitude and characteristics of the population of cancer survivors: using population-based estimates of cancer prevalence to inform service planning for survivorship care. BMC Cancer. 2014;14(1):767.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. WHO. Cancer incidence and mortality statistics worldwide and by region http://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/20-Breast-fact-sheet.pdf: The Global Cancer Observatory. 2018.

  4. Bell K, Ristovski-Slijepcevic S. Cancer survivorship: why labels matter. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(4):409–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Denlinger CS, Carlson RW, Are M, Baker KS, Davis E, Edge SB, et al. Survivorship: introduction and definition. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12(1):34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Keesing S, Rosenwax L, McNamara B. A call to action: The need for improved service coordination during early survivorship for women with breast cancer and partners. Women Health. 2019;59(4):406–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Costanzo ES, Lutgendorf SK, Mattes ML, Trehan S, Robinson CB, Tewfik F, et al. Adjusting to life after treatment: distress and quality of life following treatment for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(12):1625–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Stanton AL. What happens now? Psychosocial care for cancer survivors after medical treatment completion. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(11):1215–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Institute of Medicine Committee on Psychosocial Services to Cancer Patients/Families in a Community S. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. In: Adler NE, Page AEK, editors. Cancer Care for the Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health Needs. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) National Academy of Sciences; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Macleod J, Davey SG. Psychosocial factors and public health: a suitable case for treatment? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(8):565.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Walker J, Hansen CH, Martin P, Symeonides S, Ramessur R, Murray G, et al. Prevalence, associations, and adequacy of treatment of major depression in patients with cancer: a cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected clinical data. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1(5):343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bloom JR, Petersen DM, Kang SH. Multi-dimensional quality of life among long-term (5+ years) adult cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2007;16(8):691–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carver CS, Smith RG, Petronis VM, Antoni MH. Quality of life among long-term survivors of breast cancer: different types of antecedents predict different classes of outcomes. Psycho-Oncology. 2006;15(9):749–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Doege D, Thong MS, Koch-Gallenkamp L, Bertram H, Eberle A, Holleczek B, et al. Health-related quality of life in long-term disease-free breast cancer survivors versus female population controls in Germany. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;175(2):499–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kendall AR, Mahue-Giangreco M, Carpenter CL, Ganz PA, Bernstein L. Influence of exercise activity on quality of life in long-term breast cancer survivors. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(2):361–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bower JE, Meyerowitz BE, Desmond KA, Bernaards CA, Rowland JH, Ganz PA. Perceptions of positive meaning and vulnerability following breast cancer: predictors and outcomes among long-term breast cancer survivors. Ann Behav Med. 2005;29(3):236–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mols F, Vingerhoets AJJM, Coebergh JW, van de Poll-Franse LV. Quality of life among long-term breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(17):2613–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, Bonomi AE, Tulsky DS, Lloyd SR, et al. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):974–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goyal NG, Levine BJ, Van Zee KJ, Naftalis E, Avis NE. Trajectories of quality of life following breast cancer diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(1):163–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Deshields T, Tibbs T, Fan M-y, Taylor M. Differences in patterns of depression after treatment for breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2006;15(5):398–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Paek M-S, Ip EH, Levine B, Avis NE. Longitudinal reciprocal relationships between quality of life and coping strategies among women with breast cancer. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50(5):775–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Janz NK, Friese CR, Li Y, Graff JJ, Hamilton AS, Hawley ST. Emotional well-being years post-treatment for breast cancer: prospective, multi-ethnic, and population-based analysis. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(1):131–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bellizzi KM, Smith AW, Reeve BB, Alfano CM, Bernstein L, Meeske K, et al. Posttraumatic growth and health-related quality of life in a racially diverse cohort of breast cancer survivors. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(4):615–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Durá-Ferrandis E, Mandelblatt JS, Clapp J, Luta G, Faul L, Kimmick G, et al. Personality, coping, and social support as predictors of long-term quality-of-life trajectories in older breast cancer survivors: Calgb protocol 369901 (alliance). Psycho-Oncology. 2017;26:1914.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Koch L, Bertram H, Eberle A, Holleczek B, Schmid-Hopfner S, Waldmann A, et al. Fear of recurrence in long-term breast cancer survivors-still an issue. Results on prevalence, determinants, and the association with quality of life and depression from the cancer survivorship--a multi-regional population-based study. Psychooncology. 2014;23(5):547–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Taylor T, Huntley E, Sween J, Makambi K, Mellman T, Williams C, et al. An exploratory analysis of fear of recurrence among African-American breast cancer survivors. Int J Behav Med. 2012;19(3):280–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ho SSM, So WKW, Leung DYP, Lai ETL, Chan CWH. Anxiety, depression and quality of life in Chinese women with breast cancer during and after treatment: a comparative evaluation. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(6):877–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sammarco A, Konecny LM. Quality of life, social support, and uncertainty among Latina breast cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2008;35(5):844–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ashing-Giwa KT, Lim JW. Predicting physical quality of life among a multiethnic sample of breast cancer survivors. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):789–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cheng H, Sit JW, Chan CW, So WK, Choi KC, Cheng KK. Social support and quality of life among Chinese breast cancer survivors: findings from a mixed methods study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(6):788–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. DiSipio T, Hayes S, Newman B, Janda M. What determines the health-related quality of life among regional and rural breast cancer survivors? Aust N Z J Public Health. 2009;33(6):534–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Huang C-Y, Hsu M-C. Social support as a moderator between depressive symptoms and quality of life outcomes of breast cancer survivors. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(6):767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lewis JA, Manne SL, DuHamel KN, Vickburg SM, Bovbjerg DH, Currie V, et al. Social support, intrusive thoughts, and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. J Behav Med. 2001;24(3):231–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Northouse LL, Caffey M, Deichelbohrer L, Schmidt L, Guziatek-Trojniak L, West S, et al. The quality of life of African American women with breast cancer. Res Nurs Health. 1999;22(6):449–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pedro LW. Quality of life for long-term survivors of cancer: influencing variables. Cancer Nurs. 2001;24(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Edib Z, Kumarasamy V, binti Abdullah N, Rizal AM, Al-Dubai SAR. Most prevalent unmet supportive care needs and quality of life of breast cancer patients in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Avis NE, Crawford S, Manuel J. Quality of life among younger women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(15):3322–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Begovic-Juhant A, Chmielewski A, Iwuagwu S, Chapman LA. Impact of body image on depression and quality of life among women with breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2012;30(4):446–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cheng ASK, Lau LOC, Ma YNH, Ngai RH, Fong SSL. Impact of cognitive and psychological symptoms on work productivity and quality of life among breast cancer survivors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong J Occup Ther. 2016;28(1):15–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim SH, Son BH, Hwang SY, Han W, Yang JH, Lee S, et al. Fatigue and depression in disease-free breast cancer survivors: prevalence, correlates, and association with quality of life. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2008;35(6):644–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Akechi T, Momino K, Miyashita M, Sakamoto N, Yamashita H, Toyama T. Anxiety in disease-free breast cancer patients might be alleviated by provision of psychological support, not of information. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(10):929–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kessler TA. Contextual variables, emotional state, and current and expected quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002;29(7):1109–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Paek MS, Lim JW. Understanding the stress process of Chinese- and Korean-American breast cancer survivors. J Immigr Minor Health. 2016;18(5):1159–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Manning-Walsh J. Spiritual struggle: effect on quality of life and life satisfaction in women with breast cancer. J Holist Nurs. 2005;23(2):120–40 discussion 41-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wildes KA, Miller AR, de Majors SSM, Ramirez AG. The religiosity/spirituality of Latina breast cancer survivors and influence on health-related quality of life. Psycho-Oncology. 2009;18(8):831–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Petersen LR, Clark MM, Novotny P, Kung S, Sloan JA, Patten CA, et al. Relationship of optimism-pessimism and health-related quality of life in breast cancer survivors. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2008;26(4):15–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Farren AT. Power, uncertainty, self-transcendence, and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Nurs Sci Q. 2010;23(1):63–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ganz PA, Greendale GA, Petersen L, Kahn B, Bower JE. Breast cancer in younger women: reproductive and late health effects of treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(22):4184–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bouskill K, Kramer M. The impact of cancer and quality of life among long-term survivors of breast cancer in Austria. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(11):4705–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Morrill EF, Brewer NT, O'Neill SC, Lillie SE, Dees EC, Carey LA, et al. The interaction of post-traumatic growth and post-traumatic stress symptoms in predicting depressive symptoms and quality of life. Psycho-Oncology. 2008;17(9):948–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lins L, Carvalho FM. SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: scoping review. SAGE Open Med. 2016;4:2050312116671725.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Edib Z, Kumarasamy V, Abdullah N, Rizal AM, Al-Dubai SAR, Binti Abdullah N. Most prevalent unmet supportive care needs and quality of life of breast cancer patients in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, Franklin J, te Velde A, Muller M, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(10):2756–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ferrans CE. Development of a quality of life index for patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1990;17(3 Suppl):15–9 discussion 20-1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Cantril H. The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Sohl SJ, Levine B, Avis NE. Evaluation of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) scale for early post-treatment breast cancer survivors. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(1):205–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ferrell BR, Dow KH, Grant M. Measurement of the quality of life in cancer survivors. Qual Life Res. 1995;4(6):523–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(6):705–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Cohen S., Underwood LG, Gottlieb BH. Social support measurement and intervention: a guide for health and social scientists. 2000. New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Shearin EN, Pierce GR. A brief measure of social support: practical and theoretical implications. J Soc Pers Relat. 1987;4(4):497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney JM Jr. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA. 1997;277(24):1940–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Northouse LL. Social support in patients’ and husbands’ adjustment to breast cancer. Nurs Res. 1988;37(2):91–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Smilkstein G. The family APGAR: a proposal for family function test and its use by physicians. J Fam Pract. 1978;6(6):1231–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Norbeck JS. Social support: a model for clinical research and application. Adv Nurs Sci. 1981;3(4):43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. McElduff P, Boyes A, Zucca A, Girgis A. Supportive Care Needs Survey: A guide to administration, scoring and analysis. Centre for Health Research & Psycho-oncology; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Schag CA, Ganz PA, Polinsky ML, Fred C, Hirji K, Petersen L. Characteristics of women at risk for psychosocial distress in the year after breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(4):783–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale:a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1(3):385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri WF. Comparison of beck depression inventories-IA and-II in psychiatric outpatients. J Pers Assess. 1996;67(3):588–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:1063.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Carver CS. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med. 1997;4:92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. McCubbin H, Larsen A, Olson D. Family crisis orientated personal evaluation scales (FCOPES). In: McCubbin H, Thompson AI, editors. Family assessment inventories for research and practice; 1987. p. 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Dunkel-Schetter C, Feinstein LG, Taylor SE, Falke RL. Patterns of coping with cancer. Health Psychol. 1992;11(2):79–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Becker H, Stuifbergen A, Oh HS, Hall S. Self-rated abilities for health practices: a health self-efficacy measure. Health Values. 1993;17(5):42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Rosenberg M, Kaplan H. Social psychology of the self-concept. Chicago: Harlan Davidson; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Cope DG, Olson K, Humenick SS. Self-esteem and the practice of breast self-examination. West J Nurs Res. 1992;14(5):618–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Peterman AH, Fitchett G, Brady MJ, Hernandez L, Cella D. Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy--Spiritual Well-being Scale (FACIT-Sp). Ann Behav Med. 2002;24(1):49–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Pargament KI, Smith BW, Koenig HG, Perez L. Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. J Sci Study Relig. 1998;37(4):710–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Holland JC, Kash KM, Passik S, Gronert MK, Sison A, Lederberg M, et al. A brief spiritual beliefs inventory for use in quality of life research in life-threatening illness. Psycho-Oncology. 1998;7(6):460–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Scheier MF, Carver CS. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 1985;4(3):219–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Colligan RC, Offord KP, Malinchoc M, Schulman P, Seligman MEP. CAVEing the MMPI for an optimism-pessimism scale: Seligman's attributional model and the assessment of explantory style. J Clin Psychol. 1994;50:71–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Mishel MH. Uncertainty in illness. Image. 1988;20:225–32.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Oberst MT. Appraisal of illness scale: manual for use. Detroit: Wayne State University; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Barrett EA, Caroselli C. Methodological ponderings related to the power as knowing participation in change tool. Nurs Sci Q. 1998;11(1):17–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Reed PG. Self-transcendence scale. Tucson: University of Arizona; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Hawley ST, Janz NK, Hamilton A, Griggs JJ, Alderman AK, Mujahid M, et al. Latina patient perspectives about informed treatment decision making for breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):363–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Herschbach P, Berg P, Dankert A, Duran G, Engst-Hastreiter U, Waadt S, et al. Fear of progression in chronic diseases: psychometric properties of the Fear of Progression Questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2005;58(6):505–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Vickberg SM. The Concerns About Recurrence Scale (CARS): a systematic measure of women’s fears about the possibility of breast cancer recurrence. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25(1):16–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Ganz PA, Rowland JH, Desmond K, Meyerowitz BE, Wyatt GE. Life after breast cancer: understanding women’s health-related quality of life and sexual functioning. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(2):501–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41(3):209–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Devins GM. Using the illness intrusiveness ratings scale to understand health-related quality of life in chronic disease. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68(6):591–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Zebrack BJ, Ganz PA, Bernaards CA, Petersen L, Abraham L. Assessing the impact of cancer: development of a new instrument for long-term survivors. Psychooncology. 2006;15(5):407–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Weathers FW, Huska JA, TM. K. PCL-C for DSM-IV. Boston: National Center for PTSD—Behavioral Science Division; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Mood D, Bickes J. Strategies to enhance self-care in radiation therapy. Oncol Nurs Forum (Supplement). 1989;16:143.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ashing-Giwa KT, Padilla GV, Tejero JS, Kim J. Breast cancer survivorship in a multiethnic sample: challenges in recruitment and measurement. Cancer. 2004;101(3):450–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Ashing-Giwa K, Ganz PA, Petersen L. Quality of life of African-American and white long term breast carcinoma survivors. Cancer. 1999;85(2):418–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Olson D. FACES IV and the Circumplex Model: validation study. J Marital Fam Ther. 2011;37(1):64–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Mallinger JB, Griggs JJ, Shields CG. Family communication and mental health after breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care. 2006;15(4):355–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. The posttraumatic growth inventory: measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J Trauma Stress. 1996;9(3):455–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Ottati A, Feuerstein M. Brief self-report measure of work-related cognitive limitations in breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7(2):262–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Lerner D, Amick BC 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39(1):72–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. DiMatteo MR, Hays RD, Gritz ER, Bastani R, Crane L, Elashoff R, et al. Patient adherence to cancer control regimens: scale development and initial validation. Psychol Assess. 1993;5(1):102–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Chopra I, Kamal KM. A systematic review of quality of life instruments in long-term breast cancer survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Densitom. 1998;16:139.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Hullmann SE, Robb SL, Rand KL. Life goals in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Psycho-Oncology. 2016;25(4):387–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Garchinski CM, DiBiase A-M, Wong RK, Sagar SM. Patient-centered care in cancer treatment programs: the future of integrative oncology through psychoeducation. Future Oncol. 2014;10(16):2603–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Gudenkauf LM, Ehlers SL. Psychosocial interventions in breast cancer survivorship care. Breast. 2018;38:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lamorna, Alenka, Isadora and Cathy for their help in reviewing abstracts.

Funding

CC and KB were funded by the Health Research Board (HRB), Research Leaders Award (HRB RL-2015-1579) and the Marie Keating Foundation (CTRIAL-IE 17–16). MC was funded by the Marie Keating Foundation (CTRIAL-IE 17–16) and also by the HRB Summer Scholarship programme. The HRB and Marie Keating Foundations had no role in the design, methods, analysis of this study, or in the preparation of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Population Health Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street, Dublin, 2, Ireland

    Michael G. Culbertson, Kathleen Bennett & Caitriona Cahir

  2. Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, 1, Ireland

    Catherine M. Kelly

  3. Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

    Linda Sharp

Authors
  1. Michael G. Culbertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine M. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linda Sharp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caitriona Cahir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MC and CC were involved in the concept and design of the study. MC was the primary reviewer. MC, KB, CMK, LS and CC were involved in interpretation of the findings. MC wrote the first draft of the manuscript and KB, CMK, LS and CC contributed to subsequent drafts. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caitriona Cahir.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Database search criteria
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Culbertson, M.G., Bennett, K., Kelly, C.M. et al. The psychosocial determinants of quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a scoping review. BMC Cancer 20, 948 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07389-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07389-w

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us