Published in PLOS One on 2026-02-12, this study is presented as an attributed evidence briefing. The excerpts below are the original researchers’ words, reproduced under their Creative Commons Attribution licence. HealthSignal has selected the abstract and, where needed, opening background paragraphs; the complete methods, results, limitations and references remain in the linked paper.
Original authors: Kofi Gyasi Agyei, Ahmed-Rufai Yahaya, Natalie LeBlanc, Kah Poh Loh, Sally A Norton
Source: PLOS One • DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0343094
Read the complete primary study ↗ · Creative Commons Attribution licence
From the researchers
Abstract
Patients with serious illnesses, especially those with cancer, require information and good communication throughout their care. Effective communication is pivotal for quality cancer care, leading to improved quality of life, reduced anxiety, enhanced patient satisfaction, and adherence with treatment recommendations. Considering this, programs including serious illness conversation guides have been developed and implemented internationally (e.g., in the US) to improve communication skills in oncology care. Although many low- and middle-income countries are experiencing a growing cancer burden in both incidence and mortality, prognosis and treatment options are rarely discussed, which may be due to a lack of culturally sensitive guidelines in the African context. Notably, Ghana is facing a concerning increase in cancer prevalence and incidence. However, there is a paucity of information about the communication and information needs of patients with cancer in Ghana. This review will provide critical insights to guide the development or adaptation of culturally sensitive guidelines/frameworks appropriate for the Ghanaian context, with potential applicability to other African countries facing similar sociocultural and health system dynamics.
This scoping review sought to explore and synthesize existing evidence on the communication and information needs of patients with cancer in Ghana.
A systematic search was undertaken across PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases using keywords and MeSH terms related to cancer, communication/information, and Ghana, employing Boolean operators “OR,” “AND.” The scoping review was guided by the five-stage methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was further adopted to ensure comprehensive reporting.
Eight studies published between 2019 and 2023 met the inclusion criteria. Two major themes with sub-themes were identified including (1) information and communication experiences ((i) concealed information, (ii) disruption in communication, (iii) breaking bad news, (iv) power asymmetry-deference to healthcare providers), and (2) communication and information needs and expectations ((i) information on disease conditions, (ii) information on cancer treatment, (iii) information on prognosis, (iv) ongoing information, (v) involvement in decision-making).
Ghanaian patients with cancer strongly desire information regarding their condition and expect to be involved in decision-making. Despite patients with cancer’s desire for comprehensive information and shared decision-making, gaps in healthcare communication were evident, including limited accessibility to information, inadequate explanations by healthcare providers, and a lack of patient involvement in decision-making. Addressing these gaps requires tailored interventions to improve healthcare provider-patient communication.
Introduction
Individuals with serious illnesses require adequate information and effective communication throughout their disease trajectory [1]. Effective communication is essential for high-quality end-of-life care, particularly for individuals diagnosed with serious illnesses like cancer, due to the health risks and substantial burden it places on caregivers. Addressing patient health literacy needs, prognosis, and patients’ values or goals of care is integral for person-centered care, especially in serious illness [2]. It is also essential for individuals with cancer as it enables them to receive timely and pertinent information, particularly about their prognosis and treatment options, especially during the end-of-life stage, which ensures informed decision-making. It can help reduce resource utilization, alleviate patient stress and anxiety, promote more goal-concordant care, and enhance clinicians’ experiences in providing care [3,4].
Reading this evidence
Use the full paper to check the study design, participant selection, comparator and outcome definitions before drawing a practical conclusion. An association does not by itself show cause and effect. A reported performance measure needs its denominator and uncertainty. A finding from a particular facility, sample or time period should retain that scope when it is discussed elsewhere.
This briefing makes the source accessible within the wider research & evidence desk. It does not assess an individual patient or certify a product. When considering relevance to another health system, examine the original authors’ account of context and limitations, then seek local implementation evidence. The related reporting below provides other studies to read alongside this one; it is a topic connection, rather than a claim that their results are directly comparable.
© 2026 Kofi Gyasi Agyei, Ahmed-Rufai Yahaya, Natalie LeBlanc, Kah Poh Loh, Sally A Norton. Excerpts reproduced under CC BY. Selection, formatting and contextual notes by HealthSignal. The researchers are the authors of the source study, not members of HealthSignal’s staff.
Explore connected evidence
- Evidence brief: Development of a collaborative chronic care model for management of cardiometabolic disease in low- and middle-income countries
- Evidence brief: Exploring barriers and enablers to diabetes self-care practice in Ethiopia, 2025: A qualitative systematic review
- Evidence brief: Burden and patterns of dyslipidaemia among adult Ghanaians: A systematic review
