Impact of the Method of Delivering Electronic Health Behavior Change Interventions in Survivors of Cancer on Engagement, Health Behaviors, and Health Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.


Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 06 2020
Historique:
received: 03 09 2019
accepted: 09 04 2020
revised: 19 11 2019
entrez: 24 6 2020
pubmed: 24 6 2020
medline: 22 12 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Increased accessibility to the internet and mobile devices has seen a rapid expansion in electronic health (eHealth) behavior change interventions delivered to patients with cancer and survivors using synchronous, asynchronous, and combined delivery methods. Characterizing effective delivery methods of eHealth interventions is required to enable improved design and implementation of evidence-based health behavior change interventions. This study aims to systematically review the literature and synthesize evidence on the success of eHealth behavior change interventions in patients with cancer and survivors delivered by synchronous, asynchronous, or combined methods compared with a control group. Engagement with the intervention, behavior change, and health outcomes, including quality of life, fatigue, depression, and anxiety, were examined. A search of Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and PubMed was conducted for studies published between March 2007 and March 2019. We looked for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining interventions delivered to adult cancer survivors via eHealth methods with a measure of health behavior change. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to examine whether the method of eHealth delivery impacted the level of engagement, behavior change, and health outcomes. A total of 24 RCTs were included predominantly examining dietary and physical activity behavior change interventions. There were 11 studies that used a synchronous approach and 11 studies that used an asynchronous approach, whereas 2 studies used a combined delivery method. Use of eHealth interventions improved exercise behavior (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.48), diet behavior (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-0.70), fatigue (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.50; SMD change 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.35), anxiety (SMD 1.21, 95% CI: 0.36-2.07; SMD change 0.15, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.40), depression (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.00-0.30), and quality of life (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.34; SMD change 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.24). The mode of delivery did not influence the amount of dietary and physical activity behavior change observed. Physical activity and dietary behavior change eHealth interventions delivered to patients with cancer or survivors have a small to moderate impact on behavior change and a small to very small benefit to quality of life, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether asynchronous or synchronous delivery modes yield superior results. Three-arm RCTs comparing delivery modes with a control with robust engagement reporting are required to determine the most successful delivery method for promoting behavior change and ultimately favorable health outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Increased accessibility to the internet and mobile devices has seen a rapid expansion in electronic health (eHealth) behavior change interventions delivered to patients with cancer and survivors using synchronous, asynchronous, and combined delivery methods. Characterizing effective delivery methods of eHealth interventions is required to enable improved design and implementation of evidence-based health behavior change interventions.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to systematically review the literature and synthesize evidence on the success of eHealth behavior change interventions in patients with cancer and survivors delivered by synchronous, asynchronous, or combined methods compared with a control group. Engagement with the intervention, behavior change, and health outcomes, including quality of life, fatigue, depression, and anxiety, were examined.
METHODS
A search of Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and PubMed was conducted for studies published between March 2007 and March 2019. We looked for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining interventions delivered to adult cancer survivors via eHealth methods with a measure of health behavior change. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to examine whether the method of eHealth delivery impacted the level of engagement, behavior change, and health outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 24 RCTs were included predominantly examining dietary and physical activity behavior change interventions. There were 11 studies that used a synchronous approach and 11 studies that used an asynchronous approach, whereas 2 studies used a combined delivery method. Use of eHealth interventions improved exercise behavior (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.48), diet behavior (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-0.70), fatigue (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.50; SMD change 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.35), anxiety (SMD 1.21, 95% CI: 0.36-2.07; SMD change 0.15, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.40), depression (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.00-0.30), and quality of life (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.34; SMD change 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.24). The mode of delivery did not influence the amount of dietary and physical activity behavior change observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Physical activity and dietary behavior change eHealth interventions delivered to patients with cancer or survivors have a small to moderate impact on behavior change and a small to very small benefit to quality of life, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether asynchronous or synchronous delivery modes yield superior results. Three-arm RCTs comparing delivery modes with a control with robust engagement reporting are required to determine the most successful delivery method for promoting behavior change and ultimately favorable health outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32574147
pii: v22i6e16112
doi: 10.2196/16112
pmc: PMC7381039
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e16112

Informations de copyright

©Kate Furness, Mitchell N Sarkies, Catherine E Huggins, Daniel Croagh, Terry P Haines. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 23.06.2020.

Références

Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Oct;100(10):1918-1927
pubmed: 28583722
BJU Int. 2008 May;101(10):1227-31
pubmed: 18218061
Postgrad Med J. 2017 Feb;93(1096):82-90
pubmed: 28123076
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 12;7(2):e12281
pubmed: 30747720
J Cancer Surviv. 2018 Feb;12(1):82-94
pubmed: 28994035
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 14;14(6):e152
pubmed: 23151820
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Apr 30;9:52
pubmed: 22546283
Ann Behav Med. 2012 Apr;43(2):229-38
pubmed: 22109352
CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Jan-Feb;62(1):30-67
pubmed: 22237782
J Cancer Surviv. 2015 Dec;9(4):660-82
pubmed: 25757733
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2013 Sep;6(9):971-8
pubmed: 23867158
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov;143(11):2291-2299
pubmed: 28699035
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Dec 20;34(36):4405-4414
pubmed: 27998215
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Feb 10;12(1):e3
pubmed: 20147006
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Feb 17;12(1):e4
pubmed: 20164043
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Feb 24;16(2):e54
pubmed: 24566820
Open Obes J. 2011;3:87-97
pubmed: 22238561
Health Psychol. 2010 Jan;29(1):1-8
pubmed: 20063930
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Feb;132(1):205-13
pubmed: 22113257
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun 23;8(2):e10
pubmed: 16867965
JMIR Cancer. 2017 Sep 27;3(2):e16
pubmed: 28954716
Int J Med Inform. 2006 Mar-Apr;75(3-4):330-4
pubmed: 16143564
J Telemed Telecare. 2012 Jun;18(4):211-20
pubmed: 22674020
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jun 20;31(18):2313-21
pubmed: 23690410
Med 2 0. 2012 Aug 14;1(2):e3
pubmed: 25075231
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003 Jul;13(3):248-66
pubmed: 12903014
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Nov 10;6(4):e40
pubmed: 15631964
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Oct;26(10):3413-3421
pubmed: 29675546
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Jun;7(2):254-267
pubmed: 27966189
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95
pubmed: 23512568
CA Cancer J Clin. 2006 Nov-Dec;56(6):323-53
pubmed: 17135691
J Med Internet Res. 2005 Mar 31;7(1):e11
pubmed: 15829473
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 14;19(6):e210
pubmed: 28615156
Health Psychol. 2008 May;27(3):379-87
pubmed: 18624603
Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 Dec;51(12):1557-67
pubmed: 24856854
Health Psychol. 2015 May;34(5):463-72
pubmed: 25110844
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 Mar-Apr;12(2):164-71
pubmed: 15561786
Health Psychol. 2018 Sep;37(9):861-865
pubmed: 30138021
PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001362
pubmed: 23349621
Psychooncology. 2017 Nov;26(11):1907-1913
pubmed: 27531024
J Cancer Surviv. 2016 Oct;10(5):883-97
pubmed: 26984534
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Nov 05;15(11):e218
pubmed: 24195867
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010 May 01;4(3):666-84
pubmed: 20513335
Support Care Cancer. 2012 Oct;20(10):2595-610
pubmed: 22286363
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):833-842
pubmed: 27745683
JAMA. 2009 May 13;301(18):1883-91
pubmed: 19436015
JMIR Cancer. 2015 Nov 23;1(2):e12
pubmed: 28410166
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Am J Prev Med. 2007 May;32(5):419-34
pubmed: 17478269
J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2011 Dec;1(4):188-194
pubmed: 23610737
J Geriatr Oncol. 2014 Oct 1;5(4):359-67
pubmed: 24981125
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018 Oct 30;15(1):106
pubmed: 30376857
J Cancer Surviv. 2015 Jun;9(2):279-86
pubmed: 25425205
Int J Behav Healthc Res. 2011 Oct;2(4):320-332
pubmed: 25383095
Prev Med. 2008 Jul;47(1):3-16
pubmed: 18403003
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011 Mar;38(2):E97-106
pubmed: 21356647
Psychooncology. 2013 Apr;22(4):829-36
pubmed: 22573338
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Apr 20;30(12):1296-303
pubmed: 22412149
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Nov;26(11):3915-3923
pubmed: 29785635

Auteurs

Kate Furness (K)

Nutrition and Dietetics, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia.
School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Mitchell N Sarkies (MN)

School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Catherine E Huggins (CE)

Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Daniel Croagh (D)

Upper Gastrointestinal and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Terry P Haines (TP)

School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH