Are digital health interventions valuable to support patients with cancer and caregivers? An umbrella review of web-based and app-based supportive care interventions.
digital intervention
patients
relatives
supportive care
umbrella review
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Nov 2023
08 Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
28
09
2023
received:
02
08
2023
accepted:
27
10
2023
medline:
8
11
2023
pubmed:
8
11
2023
entrez:
8
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Digital health technologies have expanded tremendously in the last two decades, creating an emerging research and clinical field. They are regarded as cost-effective, and their use in healthcare is prioritized by many countries. However, the constant evolution of these technologies has led to an abundance of related literature. Thus, we conducted an umbrella review to identify and characterize digital supportive care interventions for patients with cancer and their relatives. A preregistered umbrella review was conducted (PROSPERO registration number CRD42022333110). Five databases were searched (Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library). To be considered, studies had to be systematic reviews or meta-analyses, be performed on pediatric or adult patients with cancer or survivors or their relatives, report results on web-based or app-based supportive care interventions, and measure psychological, functional, or behavioral variables or quality of life related to cancer. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Twenty eligible studies were identified. Most of the included studies reported results from adult patients with cancer. Globally, digital interventions were shown to be effective for physical activity in patients with cancer but had mixed results regarding emotional outcomes and quality of life. Additionally, a lack of methodological quality was noted for most of the included reviews. Digital supportive care interventions could be an effective tool in cancer care for some outcomes. Recommendations have been formulated for further research in this field using adapted methodologies for the development of digital health interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Digital health technologies have expanded tremendously in the last two decades, creating an emerging research and clinical field. They are regarded as cost-effective, and their use in healthcare is prioritized by many countries. However, the constant evolution of these technologies has led to an abundance of related literature. Thus, we conducted an umbrella review to identify and characterize digital supportive care interventions for patients with cancer and their relatives.
METHODS
METHODS
A preregistered umbrella review was conducted (PROSPERO registration number CRD42022333110). Five databases were searched (Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library). To be considered, studies had to be systematic reviews or meta-analyses, be performed on pediatric or adult patients with cancer or survivors or their relatives, report results on web-based or app-based supportive care interventions, and measure psychological, functional, or behavioral variables or quality of life related to cancer. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Twenty eligible studies were identified. Most of the included studies reported results from adult patients with cancer. Globally, digital interventions were shown to be effective for physical activity in patients with cancer but had mixed results regarding emotional outcomes and quality of life. Additionally, a lack of methodological quality was noted for most of the included reviews.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Digital supportive care interventions could be an effective tool in cancer care for some outcomes. Recommendations have been formulated for further research in this field using adapted methodologies for the development of digital health interventions.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Institut National Du Cancer
ID : INCA/16136
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424. doi:10.3322/caac.21492
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Estimated number of new cases in 2020, World, both sexes, all ages (excl. NMSC). 2023 https://gco.iarc.fr/today/online-analysis-table?v=2020&mode=cancer&mode_population=continents&population=900&populations=900&key=asr&sex=0&cancer=39&type=0&statistic=5&prevalence=0&population_group=0&ages_group%5B%5D=0&ages_group%5B%5D=17&group_cancer=1&include_nmsc=0&include_nmsc_other=1. http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home
Cao Y, Lu J, Lu J. Paternal smoking before conception and during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 case-control studies. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2020;42(1):32-40. doi:10.1097/MPH.0000000000001657
Levit L, Smith AP, Benz EJ, Ferrell B. Ensuring quality cancer care through the oncology workforce. J Oncol Pract. 2010;6(1):7-11. doi:10.1200/JOP.091067
The Royal College of Radiologists. New RCR workforce report shows oncologist shortages continue to impact patients. 2023 https://www.rcr.ac.uk/posts/new-rcr-workforce-report-shows-oncologist-shortages-continue-impact-patients
Cook R. Economic and clinical impact of multiple myeloma to managed care. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(7 Supp A):19-25. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2008.14.S7-A.19
Carlson LE, Bultz BD. Efficacy and medical cost offset of psychosocial interventions in cancer care: making the case for economic analyses. Psychooncology. 2004;13(12):837-849. doi:10.1002/pon.832
Jansen F, van Zwieten V, Coupé VMH, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. A review on cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of psychosocial care in cancer patients. Asia-Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2016;3(2):125-136. doi:10.4103/2347-5625.182930
Hu K, Liu Q, László KD, et al. Risk of psychiatric disorders among spouses of patients with cancer in Denmark and Sweden. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(1):e2249560. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49560
Stark AL, Geukes C, Dockweiler C. Digital health promotion and prevention in settings: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(1):e21063. doi:10.2196/21063
Morris BB, Rossi B, Fuemmeler B. The role of digital health technology in rural cancer care delivery: a systematic review. J Rural Health. 2022;38(3):493-511. doi:10.1111/jrh.12619
Gentili A, Failla G, Melnyk A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: a systematic review of the literature. Front Public Health. 2022;10:787135. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.787135
Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132-140. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):579. doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008
Qan'ir Y, Song L. Systematic review of technology-based interventions to improve anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life among patients with prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 2019;28(8):1601-1613. doi:10.1002/pon.5158
Huang J, Han Y, Wei J, et al. The effectiveness of the internet-based self-management program for cancer-related fatigue patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(3):287-298. doi:10.1177/0269215519889394
Zhang X, Ma L, Feng L. Web-based self-management intervention for patients with cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2022;54(5):598-606. doi:10.1111/jnu.12774
Zheng C, Chen X, Weng L, et al. Benefits of Mobile apps for cancer pain management: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(1):e17055. doi:10.2196/17055
Kiss N, Isenring E, Gough K, et al. Early and intensive dietary counseling in lung cancer patients receiving (chemo)radiotherapy-a pilot randomized controlled. Trial. 2016;68(6):958-967. doi:10.1080/01635581.2016.1188972
McAlpine H, Joubert L, Martin-Sanchez F, Merolli M, Drummond KJ. A systematic review of types and efficacy of online interventions for cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(3):283-295. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.11.002
Ester M, Eisele M, Wurz A, McDonough MH, McNeely M, Culos-Reed SN. Current evidence and directions for future research in eHealth physical activity interventions for adults affected by cancer: systematic review. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(3):e28852. doi:10.2196/28852
Wan SW, Chng YJD, Lim SH, Chong CS, Pikkarainen M, He HG. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of web-based psychosocial interventions among patients with colorectal cancer. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(7):1883-1896. doi:10.1111/jan.15258
Goliță S, Băban A. A systematic review of the effects of internet-based psychological interventions on emotional distress and quality of life in adult cancer patients. J Evid-Based Psychother. 2019;19:47-78. doi:10.24193/jebp.2019.2.13
Singleton AC, Raeside R, Hyun KK, et al. Electronic health interventions for patients with breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analyses. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(20):2257-2270. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.01171
Dorri S, Asadi F, Olfatbakhsh A, Kazemi A. A systematic review of electronic health (eHealth) interventions to improve physical activity in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Tokyo Jpn. 2020;27(1):25-46. doi:10.1007/s12282-019-00982-3
Kamalumpundi V, Saeidzadeh S, Chi NC, Nair R, Gilbertson-White S. The efficacy of web or mobile-based interventions to alleviate emotional symptoms in people with advanced cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(4):3029-3042. doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06496-z
Seiler A, Klaas V, Tröster G, Fagundes CP. eHealth and mHealth interventions in the treatment of fatigued cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychooncology. 2017;26(9):1239-1253. doi:10.1002/pon.4489
Kim Y, Kang SJ. Computerized programs for cancer survivors with cognitive problems: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv Res Pract. 2019;13(6):911-920. doi:10.1007/s11764-019-00807-4
Haberlin C, O'Dwyer T, Mockler D, Moran J, O'Donnell DM, Broderick J. The use of eHealth to promote physical activity in cancer survivors: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(10):3323-3336. doi:10.1007/s00520-018-4305-z
Buneviciene I, Mekary RA, Smith TR, Onnela JP, Bunevicius A. Can mHealth interventions improve quality of life of cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2021;157:103123. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103123
Ramsey WA, Heidelberg RE, Gilbert AM, Heneghan MB, Badawy SM, Alberts NM. eHealth and mHealth interventions in pediatric cancer: a systematic review of interventions across the cancer continuum. Psychooncology. 2020;29(1):17-37. doi:10.1002/pon.5280
Hong HC, Min A, Kim YM. The effectiveness of digital self-management interventions on health outcomes among childhood cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(11):4387-4399. doi:10.1111/jan.14925
Kang HS, Kim HK, Park SM, Kim JH. Online-based interventions for sexual health among individuals with cancer: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):167. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2972-6
Kaltenbaugh DJ, Klem ML, Hu L, Turi E, Haines AJ, Hagerty LJ. Using web-based interventions to support caregivers of patients with cancer: a systematic review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2015;42(2):156-164. doi:10.1188/15.ONF.156-164
Smits M, Kim CM, van Goor H, Ludden GDS. From digital health to digital well-being: systematic scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(4):e33787. doi:10.2196/33787
Czajkowski SM, Powell LH, Adler N, et al. From ideas to efficacy: the ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases. Health Psychol. 2015;34(10):971-982. doi:10.1037/hea0000161
O'Cathain A, Croot L, Duncan E, et al. Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e029954. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029954
Kampshoff CS, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, van Oijen MG, Sprangers MA, Buffart LM. Ecological momentary assessments among patients with cancer: a scoping review. Eur J Cancer Care. 2019;28(3):e13095. doi:10.1111/ecc.13095
Donkin L, Christensen H, Naismith SL, Neal B, Hickie IB, Glozier N. A systematic review of the impact of adherence on the effectiveness of e-therapies. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(3):e1772. doi:10.2196/jmir.1772
Perski O, Short CE. Acceptability of digital health interventions: embracing the complexity. Transl Behav Med. 2021;11(7):1473-1480. doi:10.1093/tbm/ibab048
Armbruster C, Knaub M, Farin-Glattacker E, von der Warth R. Predictors of adherence to cancer-related mHealth apps in cancer patients undergoing oncological or follow-up treatment-a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(20):13689. doi:10.3390/ijerph192013689
Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, et al. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1480-1501. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948
Pomey MP, Flora L, Karazivan P, et al. The Montreal model: the challenges of a partnership relationship between patients and healthcare professionals. Sante Publique Vandoeuvre-Nancy Fr. 2015;27(1 Suppl):S41-S50.
Bombard Y, Baker GR, Orlando E, et al. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):98. doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z
Brault I, Vanier MC, Boucher A, Dumez V. (2014). Partners in interprofessional education: integrating patients-as-trainers. Partnering with Patients, Families, and Communities to Link Interprofessional Practice and Education, 73.
Veinot TC, Mitchell H, Ancker JS. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(8):1080-1088. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy052
McAuley A. Digital health interventions: widening access or widening inequalities? Public Health. 2014;128(12):1118-1120. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2014.10.008
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2061
Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G, et al. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):843-851. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.008
Vieira R, McDonald S, Araújo-Soares V, Sniehotta FF, Henderson R. Dynamic modelling of n-of-1 data: powerful and flexible data analytics applied to individualised studies. Health Psychol Rev. 2017;11(3):222-234. doi:10.1080/17437199.2017.1343680
Kathawalla UK, Silverstein P, Syed M. Easing into Open Science: a guide for graduate students and their advisors. Collabra Psychol. 2021;7(1):18684. doi:10.1525/collabra.18684
Hagger MS. Embracing open science and transparency in health psychology. Health Psychol Rev. 2019;13(2):131-136. doi:10.1080/17437199.2019.1605614
Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(1):1-9. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Kelders SM, Kok RN, Ossebaard HC, Gemert-Pijnen JEV. Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6):e2104. doi:10.2196/jmir.2104
Kwasnicka D, ten Hoor GA, van Dongen A, et al. Promoting scientific integrity through open science in health psychology: results of the synergy expert meeting of the European health psychology society. Health Psychol Rev. 2021;15(3):333-349. doi:10.1080/17437199.2020.1844037
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT. Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;2010(8):18. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18
Duncan E, O'Cathain A, Rousseau N, et al. Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(4):e033516. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033516
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687
Oh H, Rizo C, Enkin M, Jadad A. What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e1. doi:10.2196/jmir.7.1.e1
van Gemert-Pijnen JEWC, Nijland N, van Limburg M, et al. A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e111. doi:10.2196/jmir.1672
Meskó B, Drobni Z, Bényei É, Gergely B, Győrffy Z. Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional healthcare. mHealth. 2017;3:38. doi:10.21037/mhealth.2017.08.07