Three Barriers: Qualitative Analysis of Psychosocial Cancer Care

According to the Healthcare providers’ perceptions on barriers to the provision of psychosocial cancer care at Ocean Road Cancer Institute, a qualitative study published in October 2026, healthcare providers identified inadequate training, weak organizational support, and difficulties building patient trust as the main barriers to psychosocial cancer care.

The PLoS ONE study used face-to-face interviews with 18 healthcare providers at a tertiary cancer hospital in Tanzania, and the researchers analyzed the interviews thematically.

• Between April 20 and May 19, 2022, the study team interviewed 18 providers, including 15 nurses and three social workers.
• The October 2026 study found that none of the 18 participants had attended a formal course specifically focused on psychosocial care.
• The researchers identified three themes: inadequately trained healthcare providers, an unsupportive organizational structure and environment, and challenges establishing trusting patient-provider relationships.
• The study reported that interviews lasted between 30 and 48 minutes and reached information saturation at the 18th interview.
• One participant told the researchers, “I have not received training on psychosocial care, ” illustrating the perceived competency gap.

The October 2026 PLoS ONE study found that psychosocial cancer care was constrained by barriers operating at provider, organizational, and patient-provider relationship levels.

The researchers used an exploratory qualitative design at Ocean Road Cancer Institute, a national tertiary cancer referral hospital in Dar es Salaam. The study team recruited providers purposively, conducted semi-structured interviews in Kiswahili, transcribed the recordings verbatim, translated during coding and theme development, and used thematic analysis informed by Braun and Clarke.

The study found that staff shortages, competing clinical duties, and limited time reduced providers’ ability to explore patients’ emotional, social, and spiritual needs. One nurse described the operational pressure by saying, “the time to talk with patients in detail is minimal.”

The researchers also found that the hospital had no specialized unit dedicated specifically to psychosocial cancer care. According to the study, social workers were administratively located within the nursing section, while psychosocial support was primarily delivered through a palliative care team.

The study’s third theme concerned trust and communication. Participants reported uncertainty about how to start psychosocial conversations, concern about responding inadequately, and patient hesitation to disclose personal problems.

The October 2026 study suggests that improving psychosocial cancer care requires more than teaching individual communication techniques because the barriers also involve staffing, coordination, protocols, and service design.

• Healthcare education leaders can use the study’s findings to assess whether oncology curricula include psychosocial assessment, supportive communication, referral, and boundary-setting skills.
• Cancer-service managers can examine whether staff roles, referral pathways, and multidisciplinary responsibilities are clear enough to prevent fragmented psychosocial support.
• Qualitative researchers can compare provider perspectives with interviews from patients, hospital managers, spiritual-care providers, and other professional groups, which the study identified as a future research need.
• Research teams can preserve direct quotations and contextual details because the study used participant quotations, reflexive memo writing, peer debriefing, and collaborative review to support trustworthiness.
• Healthcare analysts should treat the findings as context-specific because the authors reported that the study took place at one national cancer referral center and did not include patients or hospital management.

The study also demonstrates why qualitative analysis is valuable in healthcare research. Counts can show how many interviews were completed, but thematic analysis reveals how workload, unclear coordination, missing protocols, and mistrust interact in everyday care. AI can accelerate the organization and comparison of those narratives, while researchers remain responsible for interpretation, ethics, reflexivity, and clinical context.

The October 2026 PLoS ONE study shows how qualitative cancer care research can expose barriers that are difficult to see in operational metrics alone. The study’s 18 provider interviews connected psychosocial-care gaps with training, workload, organizational coordination, protocols, communication, and trust. AI-enabled qualitative research can help teams process transcripts faster and compare themes more consistently, but researchers must retain responsibility for interpretation and participant protection. Try Evidano for free to analyze interviews, documents, and open-ended responses with AI-assisted qualitative workflows.