Exploring the views and experiences of HIV positive patients treated for cancer: a systematic review of the literature

ABSTRACT

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to find out what is known about patients’ experiences of a dual diagnosis of HIV and cancer. We systematically searched the following databases; MEDLINE (Ovid Version); CINAHL Plus; PsycINFO and EMBASE from inception to June 2016 for studies that included patients with a dual diagnosis of cancer and HIV and focused on patient experiences. Studies with a focus on one illness rather than a dual diagnosis, those that focused on treatment strategies and medical management, epidemiology and pathology studies and comparison studies were all excluded. The full text of the included studies were reviewed. Information on location, sample size, study design and a narrative summary of findings were extracted using a standardised format. Studies were combined thematically. 1777 records were screened by title and abstract using the selection criteria described in the methods. Eight records were reviewed in depth in full text and seven selected as eligible. The selected studies suggest that a dual diagnosis of HIV and cancer has a powerful impact on individuals’ behaviour. The experience of stigma was a consistent factor in all patient accounts and the strategy of selective disclosure to access support reveals how patient agency can interplay with stigma. This is an area largely unexplored in the published literature; further research into patients’ experiences of a dual diagnosis of HIV and cancer will provide relevant knowledge in order to tailor and improve services.

KEYWORDS:

• HIV/AIDS
• cancer
• dual diagnosis
• patient experience

Acknowledgements

EGH contributed to the development of the systematic review; reviewed articles for inclusion; extracted data; appraised quality of articles; created figures/tables; analysed data; and wrote the manuscript. MS contributed to the development of the research question and the methods for the systematic review; appraised quality of articles; contributed to interpretation of the findings and commented on all versions of the manuscript. FS contributed to the development of the research question and the methods for the systematic review; appraised quality of articles; contributed to interpretation of the findings and commented on all versions of the manuscript. The study is being undertaken as part of a PhD at University College London. It is not in receipt of any funding

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.