Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Digital Health Interventions for Adult Patients With Cancer Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Scoping Review

      review-article
      , RN, PhD 1 , , RN, PhD 2 , , RN, PhD 3 , , RN, PhD 4 , , RN, PhD 5 , , RN, PhD 2 , , PhD 6 , , RN, NP, PhD 2 ,
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Journal of Medical Internet Research
      JMIR Publications
      digital health, adult, neoplasms, randomized controlled trial, mobile phone

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Digital care has become an essential component of health care. Interventions for patients with cancer need to be effective and safe, and digital health interventions must adhere to the same requirements.

          Objective

          The purpose of this study was to identify currently available digital health interventions developed and evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) targeting adult patients with cancer.

          Methods

          A scoping review using the JBI methodology was conducted. The participants were adult patients with cancer, and the concept was digital health interventions. The context was open, and sources were limited to RCT effectiveness studies. The PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, Research Information Sharing Service, and KoreaMed databases were searched. Data were extracted and analyzed to achieve summarized results about the participants, types, functions, and outcomes of digital health interventions.

          Results

          A total of 231 studies were reviewed. Digital health interventions were used mostly at home (187/231, 81%), and the web-based intervention was the most frequently used intervention modality (116/231, 50.2%). Interventions consisting of multiple functional components were most frequently identified (69/231, 29.9%), followed by those with the self-manage function (67/231, 29%). Web-based interventions targeting symptoms with the self-manage and multiple functions and web-based interventions to treat cognitive function and fear of cancer recurrence consistently achieved positive outcomes. More studies supported the positive effects of web-based interventions to inform decision-making and knowledge. The effectiveness of digital health interventions targeting anxiety, depression, distress, fatigue, health-related quality of life or quality of life, pain, physical activity, and sleep was subject to their type and function. A relatively small number of digital health interventions specifically targeted older adults (6/231, 2.6%) or patients with advanced or metastatic cancer (22/231, 9.5%).

          Conclusions

          This scoping review summarized digital health interventions developed and evaluated in RCTs involving adult patients with cancer. Systematic reviews of the identified digital interventions are strongly recommended to integrate digital health interventions into clinical practice. The identified gaps in digital health interventions for cancer care need to be reflected in future digital health research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references271

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

          There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What is e-health?

              Introduction Everybody talks about e-health these days, but few people have come up with a clear definition of this comparatively new term. Barely in use before 1999, this term now seems to serve as a general "buzzword," used to characterize not only "Internet medicine", but also virtually everything related to computers and medicine. The term was apparently first used by industry leaders and marketing people rather than academics. They created and used this term in line with other "e-words" such as e-commerce, e-business, e-solutions, and so on, in an attempt to convey the promises, principles, excitement (and hype) around e-commerce (electronic commerce) to the health arena, and to give an account of the new possibilities the Internet is opening up to the area of health care. Intel, for example, referred to e-health as "a concerted effort undertaken by leaders in health care and hi-tech industries to fully harness the benefits available through convergence of the Internet and health care." Because the Internet created new opportunities and challenges to the traditional health care information technology industry, the use of a new term to address these issues seemed appropriate. These "new" challenges for the health care information technology industry were mainly (1) the capability of consumers to interact with their systems online (B2C = "business to consumer"); (2) improved possibilities for institution-to-institution transmissions of data (B2B = "business to business"); (3) new possibilities for peer-to-peer communication of consumers (C2C = "consumer to consumer"). So, how can we define e-health in the academic environment? One JMIR Editorial Board member feels that the term should remain in the realm of the business and marketing sector and should be avoided in scientific medical literature and discourse. However, the term has already entered the scientific literature (today, 76 Medline-indexed articles contain the term "e-health" in the title or abstract). What remains to be done is - in good scholarly tradition - to define as well as possible what we are talking about. However, as another member of the Editorial Board noted, "stamping a definition on something like e-health is somewhat like stamping a definition on 'the Internet': It is defined how it is used - the definition cannot be pinned down, as it is a dynamic environment, constantly moving." It seems quite clear that e-health encompasses more than a mere technological development. I would define the term and concept as follows: e-health is an emerging field in the intersection of medical informatics, public health and business, referring to health services and information delivered or enhanced through the Internet and related technologies. In a broader sense, the term characterizes not only a technical development, but also a state-of-mind, a way of thinking, an attitude, and a commitment for networked, global thinking, to improve health care locally, regionally, and worldwide by using information and communication technology. This definition hopefully is broad enough to apply to a dynamic environment such as the Internet and at the same time acknowledges that e-health encompasses more than just "Internet and Medicine". As such, the "e" in e-health does not only stand for "electronic," but implies a number of other "e's," which together perhaps best characterize what e-health is all about (or what it should be). Last, but not least, all of these have been (or will be) issues addressed in articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. The 10 e's in "e-health" Efficiency - one of the promises of e-health is to increase efficiency in health care, thereby decreasing costs. One possible way of decreasing costs would be by avoiding duplicative or unnecessary diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, through enhanced communication possibilities between health care establishments, and through patient involvement. Enhancing quality of care - increasing efficiency involves not only reducing costs, but at the same time improving quality. E-health may enhance the quality of health care for example by allowing comparisons between different providers, involving consumers as additional power for quality assurance, and directing patient streams to the best quality providers. Evidence based - e-health interventions should be evidence-based in a sense that their effectiveness and efficiency should not be assumed but proven by rigorous scientific evaluation. Much work still has to be done in this area. Empowerment of consumers and patients - by making the knowledge bases of medicine and personal electronic records accessible to consumers over the Internet, e-health opens new avenues for patient-centered medicine, and enables evidence-based patient choice. Encouragement of a new relationship between the patient and health professional, towards a true partnership, where decisions are made in a shared manner. Education of physicians through online sources (continuing medical education) and consumers (health education, tailored preventive information for consumers) Enabling information exchange and communication in a standardized way between health care establishments. Extending the scope of health care beyond its conventional boundaries. This is meant in both a geographical sense as well as in a conceptual sense. e-health enables consumers to easily obtain health services online from global providers. These services can range from simple advice to more complex interventions or products such a pharmaceuticals. Ethics - e-health involves new forms of patient-physician interaction and poses new challenges and threats to ethical issues such as online professional practice, informed consent, privacy and equity issues. Equity - to make health care more equitable is one of the promises of e-health, but at the same time there is a considerable threat that e-health may deepen the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots". People, who do not have the money, skills, and access to computers and networks, cannot use computers effectively. As a result, these patient populations (which would actually benefit the most from health information) are those who are the least likely to benefit from advances in information technology, unless political measures ensure equitable access for all. The digital divide currently runs between rural vs. urban populations, rich vs. poor, young vs. old, male vs. female people, and between neglected/rare vs. common diseases. In addition to these 10 essential e's, e-health should also be easy-to-use, entertaining (no-one will use something that is boring!) and exciting - and it should definitely exist! We invite other views on the definition of e-health and hope that over time the journal will be filled with articles which together elucidate the realm of e-health. Gunther Eysenbach Editor, Journal of Medical Internet Research
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                2023
                6 January 2023
                : 25
                : e38333
                Affiliations
                [1 ] College of Nursing Konyang University Daejeon Republic of Korea
                [2 ] College of Nursing and Mo-im Kim Nursing Research Institute, Yonsei Evidence Based Nursing Center of Korea: Affiliation of the Joanna Briggs Institution Yonsei University Seoul Republic of Korea
                [3 ] Department of Nursing Inha University Inchon Republic of Korea
                [4 ] College of Nursing Chonnam National University Gwangju Republic of Korea
                [5 ] College of Nursing Kosin University Busan Republic of Korea
                [6 ] Yonsei Medical Library Yonsei University Seoul Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Jiyeon Lee Jiyeonest@ 123456yuhs.ac
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0210-9176
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9806-2757
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5789-1965
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0951-1670
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0099-0804
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6941-0708
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1710-4183
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6413-329X
                Article
                v25i1e38333
                10.2196/38333
                9862347
                36607712
                43babe24-8cf7-4057-9b47-d49e04956542
                ©Kyunghwa Lee, Sanghee Kim, Soo Hyun Kim, Sung-Hee Yoo, Ji Hyun Sung, Eui Geum Oh, Nawon Kim, Jiyeon Lee. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 06.01.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 4 June 2022
                : 21 August 2022
                : 15 September 2022
                : 25 October 2022
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                digital health,adult,neoplasms,randomized controlled trial,mobile phone
                Medicine
                digital health, adult, neoplasms, randomized controlled trial, mobile phone

                Comments

                Comment on this article