Cited by 52Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityCancer survivorship and carePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

A systematic and comprehensive review of internet use in cancer patients: psychological factors.

Lleras de Frutos, María, Casellas‐Grau, Anna, Sumalla, Enric C., de Gracia, Marta, Borràs, Josep M., Ochoa Arnedo, Cristian·2020·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Online resources are changing patient‐professional relationship and care delivery by empowering patients to engage in decisions in order to cope with their illness and modify behaviors. This review analyses the psychological factors associated with spontaneous and health professional–guided internet use in cancer patients. Methods Searches were performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, and Scopus databases. Studies were included if they involved cancer patients or focused on the relationship between cancer patients and health professionals, describing either patients' spontaneous use of interne or a guided‐structured eHealth psychosocial intervention. Results Seventy‐seven scientific papers were finally included. Results described emotional and behavioral outcomes in cancer patients who accessed online information. Internet has long been used spontaneously not only as a source of medical information or symptom management but also for decision making or emotional and social support. Health professionals can guide internet use, providing specific web‐based recommendations and developing intervention programs to better meet patients' needs, such as educational or information programs. Conclusion Online access is a complementary form of care that physicians can provide. Patients benefit from online resources, especially when both they and their health professionals increase their engagement with online interventions such as integrated systems or online communities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.5194

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lleras de Frutos, M., Casellas‐Grau, A., Sumalla, E. C., de Gracia, M., Borràs, J. M., & Ochoa Arnedo, C.
Affiliations
  • Psycho‐Oncology Department Institut Català d' Oncologia Barcelona Spain
  • Institut Català d'Oncologia (ES)
  • Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (ES)
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-08-23
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
6-16
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2966385124
Cited by
52
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (69575, FIS PI15/01278)
  • European Regional Development Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
internet use, cancer patients, psychological factors, online health information, patient-professional relationship, digital health interventions, psychosocial support, online communities, shared decision-making, emotional outcomes, social support, symptom management
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Neoplasms, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review