A critical literature review of dyadic web‐based interventions to support cancer patients and their caregivers, and directions for future research
Abstract
Objective: With the rapid development of the Internet, e‐health interventions are becoming popular and are showing positive impacts. Cancer affects not only patients but also their caregivers, leading to a recognition that cancer patient–caregiver dyads cope with cancer as a unit rather than as individuals. The objectives of this paper are to explore web‐based interventions for cancer patient–caregiver dyads coping with cancer from the aspects of intervention content, delivery format, outcome measurements, and outcomes and to provide recommendations on developing patient‐caregiver dyadic web‐based interventions for future research. Methods: Literature focused on cancer patient–caregiver dyadic web‐based interventions, published in English or Chinese from the launch of five databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBase, Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded) to April 2019, was systematically searched. Manual searching through the references of full‐text articles was also conducted. Results: Of a total of 812 articles, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria. The content of these web‐based dyadic interventions mainly included information support, communication and support, skills‐building, and psycho‐education. These web‐based interventions reported a small to large positive impact on patients with cancer and their caregivers in terms of physical health (d = 0.17‐0.75), psychological health (d = 0.04‐0.80), overall quality of life (d = 0.20‐0.68), and dyadic relationship (d = 0.30‐0.95). Conclusions: Web‐based dyadic interventions can be designed for tailored content, which benefits both patients and their caregivers. Future research on cancer patient–caregiver web‐based interventions should be conducted in diverse cultures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A systematic review found evidence of small to large effect sizes for web-based dyadic interventions on physical health, psychological health, overall quality of life, and dyadic relationships.
“A systematic review [30] found evidence of small to large effect sizes for web-based dyadic interventions on physical health (d = 0.17–0.75), psychological health (d = 0.04–0.08), overall quality of life (d = 0.20–0.68), and dyadic relationships (d = 0.30–0.95).”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 59 · Cited by 67
- Authors
- Luo, X., Gao, L., Li, J., Lin, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, Q.
- Affiliations
- Jiangnan University (CN)
- First Hospital of China Medical University (CN)
- Wuxi Fourth People's Hospital (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhao, Jie
- Li, Qiuping
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-12-19
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 38-48
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- OpenAlex
- W2984660065
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 0.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (81773297)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- online intervention, e-health, caregiver burden, dyads, quality of life, psychological well-being, psychoeducation, skill development, intervention content, intervention delivery format, outcome measurement
- MeSH terms
- Internet-Based Intervention, Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Neoplasms, Psychotherapy, Caregivers
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