Survival experience of patients undergoing oesophagectomy during the recovery period: A meta‐synthesis of qualitative studies.

Aims and Objective: To systematically review and synthesise existing qualitative research evidence describing the survival experience of patients undergoing oesophagectomy during recovery. Background: Patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing surgical treatment have severe physical and psychological burdens during the recovery period. Qualitative studies on the survival experience of patients undergoing oesophagectomy are increasing annually, but there is no integration of qualitative evidence. Design: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies were conducted following the ENTREQ. Methods: Five English (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) and three Chinese (Wanfang, CNKI and VIP) databases were searched for literature on the survival of patients undergoing oesophagectomy during the recovery period from its establishment in April 2022. The quality of the literature was evaluated by the 'Qualitative Research Quality Evaluation Criteria for the JBI Evidence‐Based Health Care Centre in Australia', and the data were synthesised by the thematic synthesis method of Thomas and Harden. Results: A total of 18 studies were included, and four themes were identified: physical and mental dual challenges, impaired social functioning, efforts to return to normal life, lack of knowledge and skills in post‐discharge care, and thirst for external support. Conclusions: Future research should focus on the problem of reduced social interaction during the recovery of patients with oesophageal cancer, formulating individualised exercise intervention programs and establishing a sound social support system. Relevance to Clinical Practice: The results of this study provide evidence‐based support for nurses to carry out targeted interventions and reference methods for patients with oesophageal cancer to rebuild their lives. No Patient or Public Contribution: The report was a systematic review and did not involve a population study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]