https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0710-1854
Abstract
Treatment decision-making for older adults is complex due to multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and age-related changes such as sensory impairment and cognitive decline. In addition, many older adults have lower health literacy, which impacts their ability to access, understand, and apply health information. Patient education plays a critical role to comprehend a new cancer diagnosis, explore treatment options, and manage care effectively. To be effective, education materials must be specifically tailored to the needs of this population. Despite growing recognition of the importance of geriatric-specific cancer education, no recent review has synthesized the literature on educational interventions or materials developed for this population. This review aims to answer the question: What is known about patient education interventions and materials developed for older adults with cancer and their caregivers and their effectiveness to improve outcomes?. We will follow the Arksey and O’Malley framework, refined by Levac et al., and report according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. We will search Medline ALL, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Central, PsycInfo (all via OvidSP), and Scopus (via Elsevier) for studies published from 2000 onward and complete a manual search of the references of included studies. A health sciences librarian conducted the searches. We will include peer-reviewed and relevant grey literature. Stakeholder consultation will be conducted to inform interpretation of findings and identify gaps. Eligible studies will use qualitative or quantitative designs focused on geriatric oncology patient education. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and extract data using Covidence and Excel. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. The quality of peer-reviewed studies will be appraised with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (2018) for descriptive purposes only. This scoping review will map existing educational interventions and materials for older adults with cancer, support clinicians in practice, and highlight gaps to inform future research and development.
Citation: Lin L, Papadakos J, Fazelzad R, Haase K, Alibhai S, Bennie F, et al. (2025) Patient education for older adults with cancer and their caregivers: Protocol for a scoping review. PLoS One 20(7): e0327383. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327383
Editor: Sascha Köpke, University Hospital Cologne: Uniklinik Koln, GERMANY
Received: February 26, 2025; Accepted: June 13, 2025; Published: July 8, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Lin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults [1]. In most countries around the world the number of older adults diagnosed with cancer will increase significantly in the next years [1]. Older adults often have comorbid conditions, polypharmacy, falls and other geriatric syndromes, that could impact cancer treatment risks and benefits [2]. However, these older adults are underrepresented in clinical research and thus there is little evidence to guide treatment decision making by the clinical team [3]. The American Society of Clinical Oncology has published geriatric oncology guidelines recommending that every older adult aged 65 years and over considered for any cancer treatment should have a geriatric assessment to guide the cancer treatment and supportive care plan [2]. Several surveys have shown knowledge gaps among the various oncology providers in terms of how to conduct a comprehensive geriatric assessment [4–8].
To reduce this knowledge gap, many geriatric oncology educational modules target providers showing them how to conduct geriatric assessments [9,10]. A previous systematic review on therapeutic education for older adults with cancer with a search conducted of papers published between 1990 and 2016 showed only 14 papers and of those only 7 targeted older adults [11]. In this review, education was part of a larger intervention that included symptom management, exercises or rehabilitation or medication adherence intervention, but none seemed to address specific geriatric oncology knowledge for older adults with cancer and the education was not used as a standalone intervention, it was combined with follow-up by health care provider support. However, this review is older, and an updated review is needed [11].
Patient education is important to enhance health literacy. The WHO defines health literacy as “representing the personal knowledge and competencies that accumulate through daily activities, social interactions and across generations. Personal knowledge and competencies are mediated by the organizational structures and availability of resources that enable people to access, understand, appraise, and use information and services in ways that promote and maintain good health and well-being for themselves and those around them.” Health literacy plays a crucial role in enhancing individuals’ ability to access, comprehend, and effectively utilize reliable health information. It empowers people to make informed personal health decisions and actively participate in collective health promotion efforts to address key health determinants [12]. Older adults may have lower levels of health literacy and ehealth literacy that can impact shared decision making as well as self-management during the treatment [13]. Low health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes and difficulties following medication instructions and less able to make informed health decisions [14]. Patient education is essential for helping older adults and their caregivers understand a new cancer diagnosis, treatment options, and the self-management required to enhance quality of life [11,15–19]. However, due to age-related factors (such as sensory and cognitive changes), the educational needs of older cancer patients and their caregivers can differ significantly from those of younger patients [20–25]. By reviewing current evidence on educational interventions designed for older adults newly diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers, this scoping review aims to map the existing research landscape and identify effective educational content, delivery methods and the intended outcomes, to better support this population and inform future research. Therefore, our scoping review question is: What is known about patient education interventions and materials developed for older adults with cancer and their caregivers and their effectiveness to improve outcomes? We aim to map and synthesize evidence on educational interventions and materials designed specifically for older adults with cancer and their caregivers, including the type of educational content, delivery formats, and effectiveness of the education on outcomes. We will also identify gaps in current knowledge to inform future research and educational development.
Methods
This scoping review will be conducted following the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [26], with subsequent refinements by Levac et al.[27]. The reporting will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [28]. Additionally, the PRISMA-Protocol (PRISMA-P) statement was used to guide the development of this protocol [29]. The completed PRISMA-P Checklist is provided in S1 File.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Eligibility criteria are structured based on the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design) framework.
Population Studies examining patient education materials for older adults (aged 65 and above) with cancer and their care partners in any clinical oncology setting (inpatient or outpatient) will be included. Studies will also be eligible if the mean participant age is over 65, if subgroup analyses for older adults are reported, or if the population is explicitly described as an older adult group.
Intervention Patient education materials (modules/websites/written materials/audiovisuals) targeting older adults with cancer and their caregivers and taking into account physical, psychological and social changes with aging and how that impacts cancer treatment risk and benefits, outcomes and treatment delivery. Types of Patient Educational interventions can include [14–18]:
- Therapeutic patient education (defined as education aimed at enabling the patient and their relatives to cope with the disease in partnership with health professionals [11])
- Psychosocial or behavioral education
- Counseling with an educational component related to cancer management
- Education delivered through various formats, including individual sessions, group classes, or digital/telehealth platforms.
Comparison: it can be any/no comparator.
Outcomes: Any relevant outcome [6,19,20], such as:
- User data on the tool
- Knowledge improvement and retention
- Psychological outcomes (e.g., anxiety, depression, empowerment)
- Health-related quality of life
- Shared decision-making, decisional regrets
- Treatment adherence
- Caregiver satisfaction, burden, or stress.
Study design: All study designs will be considered eligible. Additionally, studies focusing solely on caregivers of older adults with cancer will also be included.
Exclusion criteria
- Conference abstracts, theses, reviews, editorials, and commentaries will be excluded. However, reviews will be examined to identify any original studies that meet the inclusion criteria. For conference abstracts, study authors will be contacted to confirm whether a full study has been published.
- Studies published before 2000 will be excluded. Recognition of the unique needs of older adults with cancer began to emerge in the 1990s, and the past two decades have seen significant advancements in cancer treatment tailored to this population. As a result, patient education materials developed prior to 2000 are likely to be less relevant to current clinical practice.
Studies that evaluate combined interventions, where the effects of patient education cannot be isolated from other components (e.g., psychological counseling), will be excluded.
Search strategy
In collaboration with an information specialist, a comprehensive literature search was conducted from 2000 to December 2024, in Medline ALL (Medline and Medline Epub Ahead of print and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycInfo all from the OvidSP platform, and Scopus from Elsevier. Controlled vocabulary terms and text words adapting the database-specific search syntax will be used where available. Where applicable, the search will be restricted to human studies, and older adults based on each database-indexed age group, and exclude books, and preprints. There will be no language restrictions. The reference lists from included studies, scoping and systematic review studies will be screened to identify additional potentially relevant studies. Please see S2 File for the preliminary Medline search.
Grey literature
To identify additional relevant geriatric oncology patient education studies not captured through database searches, we will conduct a grey literature search. This will include reviewing websites of patient support organizations, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the European Society of Medical Oncology, and various oncology nursing societies. In addition, we will include dissertations that meet the eligibility criteria, as they may contain original and relevant data not yet published in peer-reviewed journals.
Study selection and screening
Following deduplication in EndNote, references will be imported into the Covidence software [30] for further screening. Covidence’s deduplication function will also be used. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for eligibility using Covidence. Full texts of selected studies will then be assessed by two independent reviewers based on the eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies during abstract and full-text screening will be resolved by a third reviewer. To ensure consistency, each reviewer will initially screen 50 abstracts, followed by a team discussion to address any conflicts or ambiguities before proceeding with the remaining titles and abstracts.
Data extraction
Data from eligible studies will be extracted using a standardized Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, capturing participant demographics, details of patient education materials (e.g., aim, form, content etc., theoretical framework used), control conditions, outcomes, and study design. The data extraction form, developed by the research team, is available in S3 File. The form will be piloted by two reviewers using the first five studies, with adjustments made if necessary. If any information is missing from the publication, study authors will be contacted via email, with a follow-up reminder sent after two weeks if no response is received.
Quality assessment
The quality of included peer-reviewed studies will be assessed using the 2018 version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [31,32] within an Excel spreadsheet, conducted alongside data extraction to provide an overview of methodological quality for descriptive purposes only. Grey literature will be included for mapping but not formally appraised. Two independent reviewers will perform the assessment, with any discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Studies will not be excluded based on quality assessment; rather, this process will provide an overview of the quality of the available evidence.
Summarizing and reporting results
Results will be reported following PRISMA-ScR [28], and a PRISMA flow diagram will illustrate the review process. The quality assessment findings will be summarized in a table. Data will be analyzed and reported through a combination of descriptive numerical summaries and narrative analysis. A descriptive summary will highlight the different geriatric oncology education interventions and materials developed and tested, along with the associated outcomes, including the type of educational content, delivery formats, and effectiveness of the education on outcomes. Additionally, an outcome mapping table will categorize the primary outcome types related to patient education interventions across the included studies.
Consultation
A consultation will be conducted with patients, caregivers, and clinicians involved in geriatric oncology, consistent with the optional sixth step of the scoping review methodology as proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [26] and further developed by Levac et al. [27]. This step is intended to enhance the relevance and applicability of the review findings, rather than to contribute to data collection or the narrative synthesis. Participants will be presented with a summary of the preliminary results of the review and invited to provide feedback on the comprehensiveness, clarity, and practical implications of the findings. Their input will help validate the results, highlight knowledge gaps not captured in the literature, and will inform recommendations for future research and development of patient education resources. The consultation will be conducted via Zoom and is not part of the formal data analysis. The feedback will be summarized anonymously.
Discussion
This scoping review is intended to summarize the state of patient education interventions and materials developed for older adults with cancer and their caregivers, including educational content, delivery methods and outcomes, and to identify knowledge gaps. These findings will be useful for informing future educational interventions and development of age-appropriate education materials for this population. The number of older adults is increasing everywhere around the world, and due to age-related changes, the older adult population has unique information needs. In addition, treatment risks and benefits may be different for older adults with cancer compared to younger patient with cancer due to multimorbidity, polypharmacy, age-related decline in physiological reserve which all impact the treatment risks and in the context of declining life expectancy, benefits from treatments. In addition, many older adults with cancer rely on a support person to help them with cancer-treatment decision-making and during the treatments.
The scoping review will explore and summarize information from previously published literature. It will not involve patients or the collection of primary research, therefore ethics approval is not required. Normally as part of the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework, a consultation with stakeholders is recommended [26] and this is planned for this review.
Dissemination of the scoping review results to the broad scientific community will take place through the publication of a manuscript and presentation of results at scientific and clinical conferences.
A strength of our scoping review is a comprehensive search approach including multiple databases, multiple languages and inclusion of all types of studies. A limitation is that some of the interventions that we will identify may be older and less relevant to the current clinical setting but f so we can learn from the previous studies what the next steps for geriatric oncology education should be.
Conclusion
The results of the scoping review will provide a summary of the literature regarding geriatric oncology patient education interventions which can be used by healthcare providers with older adults with cancer.
References
- 1. Pilleron S, Alqurini N, Ferlay J, Haase KR, Hannan M, Janssen-Heijnen M, et al. International trends in cancer incidence in middle-aged and older adults in 44 countries. J Geriatr Oncol. 2022;13(3):346–55. pmid:34866023
- 2. Dale W, Klepin HD, Williams GR, Alibhai SMH, Bergerot C, Brintzenhofeszoc K. Practical assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older patients receiving systemic cancer therapy: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2023.
- 3. Sedrak MS, Freedman RA, Cohen HJ, Muss HB, Jatoi A, Klepin HD, et al. Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):78–92. pmid:33002206
- 4. Leifer R, Bristow B, Puts M, Alibhai S, Cao X, Millar B-A, et al. National Survey Among Radiation Oncology Residents Related to Their Needs in Geriatric Oncology. J Cancer Educ. 2019;34(1):9–13. pmid:28646457
- 5. Maggiore RJ, Callahan KE, Tooze JA, Parker IR, Hsu T, Klepin HD. Geriatrics fellowship training and the role of geriatricians in older adult cancer care: A survey of geriatrics fellowship directors. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2018;39(2):170–82. pmid:27749199
- 6. Puts M, Szumacher E, Dawe D, Fitch M, Jones J, Fülöp T, et al. Never too old to learn new tricks: Surveying Canadian healthcare professionals about learning needs in caring for older adults with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020.
- 7. Puts M, Oldenmenger WH, Haase KR, Sattar S, Strohschein FJ, Stolz Baskett P. Optimizing care for older adults with cancer: International Society of Geriatric Oncology Nursing and Allied Health Interest Group and European Oncology Nursing Society survey results from nurses regarding challenges and opportunities caring for older adults with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2021.
- 8. Dale W, Williams GR, A RM, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Maggiore RJ, Merrill JK, et al. How is geriatric assessment used in clinical practice for older adults with cancer? A survey of cancer providers by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020.
- 9. Nicolas C, Balardy L, Antoine V, Albarède J, Azria D, Cristol L, et al. Spreading geriatric oncology culture through professional caregivers: Results of a French massive open online course (MOOC). J Geriatr Oncol. 2022;13(1):94–9. pmid:34462239
- 10. Antoine V, Nicolas C, Albarède J, Azria D, Cristol L, Jeandel C, et al. Development and assessment of a MOOC about delirium in geriatric oncology. Bull Cancer. 2021;108(12):1101–11. pmid:34689979
- 11. Champarnaud M, Villars H, Girard P, Brechemier D, Balardy L, Nourhashémi F. Effectiveness of Therapeutic Patient Education Interventions for Older Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(7):772–82. pmid:32744575
- 12.
Health promotion glossary of terms. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2021.
- 13. Papadakos JK, Hasan SM, Barnsley J, Berta W, Fazelzad R, Papadakos CJ, et al. Health literacy and cancer self-management behaviors: A scoping review. Cancer. 2018;124(21):4202–10. pmid:30264856
- 14. Papadakos J, Barnsley J, Berta W, Rowlands G, Samoil D, Howell D. The association of self-efficacy and health literacy to chemotherapy self-management behaviors and health service utilization. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(1):603–13. pmid:34347182
- 15. Jansen J v WJ, van Dulmen S, Heeren T, Bensing J. Patient education about treatment in cancer care: an overview of the literature on older patients’ needs. Cancer Nursing. 2007.
- 16. Harris KA. The informational needs of patients with cancer and their families. Cancer Pract. 1998;6(1):39–46. pmid:9460325
- 17. Hamaker ME, van Walree IC, Seghers PALN, van den Bos F, Soubeyran P, O’Hanlon S, et al. Information needs of older patients newly diagnosed with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2022;13(3):265–72. pmid:34565693
- 18. Hekman DJ, Rodakowski J, Brick RS, Cadmus-Bertram L, Fields B. Exploration of patient and caregiver cancer education using electronic health records. J Geriatr Oncol. 2022;13(1):108–10. pmid:34172408
- 19. Scotté F, Bossi P, Carola E, Cudennec T, Dielenseger P, Gomes F, et al. Addressing the quality of life needs of older patients with cancer: a SIOG consensus paper and practical guide. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1718–26. pmid:30010772
- 20. van Weert JCM, Bolle S, van Dulmen S, Jansen J. Older cancer patients’ information and communication needs: what they want is what they get?. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92(3):388–97. pmid:23602863
- 21. Posma ER, van Weert JCM, Jansen J, Bensing JM. Older cancer patients’ information and support needs surrounding treatment: An evaluation through the eyes of patients, relatives and professionals. BMC Nurs. 2009;8:1. pmid:19152675
- 22. Kadambi S, Loh KP, Dunne R, Magnuson A, Maggiore R, Zittel J, et al. Older adults with cancer and their caregivers - current landscape and future directions for clinical care. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(12):742–55. pmid:32879429
- 23. Given B, Given CW. Older adults and cancer treatment. Cancer. 2008;113(12 Suppl):3505–11. pmid:19058145
- 24. Chouliara Z, Kearney N, Stott D, Molassiotis A, Miller M. Perceptions of older people with cancer of information, decision making and treatment: a systematic review of selected literature. Ann Oncol. 2004;15(11):1596–602. pmid:15520059
- 25. Seghers PALN, Rostoft S, O’Hanlon S, O’Sullivan B, Portielje JEA, Wildiers H, et al. Challenges of caring for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2023;14(7):101588. pmid:37454533
- 26. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8(1):19–32.
- 27. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. pmid:20854677
- 28. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.
- 29. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. pmid:25554246
- 30.
Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. www.covidence.org
- 31. Hong QN, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(3):459–67. pmid:29464873
- 32. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:49–59.e1.