This study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially disadvantaged groups.

Objectives To identify barriers that are common and unique to six selected vulnerable groups: low socioeconomic status; Indigenous; mental illness and substance abuse; homeless; prisoners; and at-risk youth. Design A systematic review was carried out to identify the perceived barriers to smoking cessation within six vulnerable groups. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched using keywords and MeSH terms from each database's inception published prior to March 2014. Study selection Studies that provided either qualitative or quantitative (ie, longitudinal, cross-sectional or cohort surveys) descriptions of self-reported perceived barriers to quitting smoking in one of the six aforementioned vulnerable groups were included. Data extraction Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Results 65 eligible papers were identified: 24 with low socioeconomic groups, 16 with Indigenous groups, 18 involving people with a mental illness, 3 with homeless groups, 2 involving prisoners and 1 involving at-risk youth. One study identified was carried out with participants who were homeless and addicted to alcohol and/or other drugs. Barriers common to all vulnerable groups included: smoking for stress management, lack of support from health and other service providers, and the high prevalence and acceptability of smoking in vulnerable communities. Unique barriers were identified for people with a mental illness (eg, maintenance of mental health), Indigenous groups (eg, cultural and historical norms), prisoners (eg, living conditions), people who are homeless (eg, competing priorities) and at-risk youth (eg, high accessibility of tobacco). Conclusions Vulnerable groups experience common barriers to smoking cessation, in addition to barriers that are unique to specific vulnerable groups. Individual-level, community-level and social network-level interventions are priority areas for future smoking cessation interventions within vulnerable groups. Trial registration number: A protocol for this review has been registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Identifier: CRD42013005761).

BACKGROUND This study aimed to assess the face, content, and construct validity and the internal reliability of a tool for assessing the generic needs of patients with cancer (the Supportive Care Needs Survey). METHODS A total of 1492 consecutive patients attending the surgical, radiation, or medical oncology departments of 9 cancer treatment centers in New South Wales, Australia, were asked to participate. Of the 1370 eligible patients, 1354 (99%) consented to participate and 888 (65%) completed the survey. Eligible consenting patients were given a Supportive Care Needs Survey to complete at home and return by mail within 7 days. RESULTS In the assessment of construct validity, the principal components method of factor analysis identified 5 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which together accounted for 64% of the total variance (patients' needs in the domains of psychologic, health system and information, physical and daily living, patient care and support, and sexuality). Face and content validity were found to be high following pilot tests and tests of reading ease. Internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach alpha) of all 5 factor‐based scales were found to be substantial, ranging from 0.87 to 0.97. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that the Supportive Care Needs Survey provides a reliable and valid index of the global needs of oncology patients. The standardized and widespread application of this instrument is recommended following further refinement and evaluation. [See related article on pages 226−37, this issue.] Cancer 2000;88:217–25. © 2000 American Cancer Society.

Objectives The recognition that a partner or caregiver is typically the patient's primary support person and is also deeply affected by the cancer diagnosis has prompted efforts to document their unmet supportive care needs. This review aimed to: (1) quantify the prevalence of unmet needs reported by partners and caregivers, (2) categorise their unmet needs by domain and (3) identify the main variables associated with reporting more unmet needs. Methods Manuscripts were identified through systematically searching electronic databases, checking the reference lists of retrieved publications, online searching of key journals and contacting researchers in this field. Results Unmet need items across 29 manuscripts were clustered into six domains: comprehensive cancer care (prevalence 1.1%–96%), emotional and psychological (3%–93.2%), partner or caregiver impact and daily activities (2.8%–79%), relationship (3.7% and 58%), information (2.2%–86%) and spiritual (2%–43%). Studies of caregivers of palliative care or terminal patients often reported a higher prevalence of unmet needs than studies of caregivers of cancer survivors. Variables associated with higher unmet needs included being female, not being the spouse of the patient, having lower social support or reporting distress. Conclusions Despite the ability to classify unmet needs within broad domains, quantification of unmet needs was challenging. This was mainly due to the diversity in methods used across studies (eg, different measures, variability in conceptualisation of unmet needs, etc). Rigorous, context-specific, longitudinal studies that use validated measures are needed to benefit future intervention research.