Supporting colorectal cancer survivors using eHealth: a systematic review and framework suggestion
Abstract
Purpose eHealth could potentially support colorectal cancer survivors; however, little is known regarding the overall recent eHealth systems for colorectal cancer survivors. The present study was conducted to address which types of eHealth supports have been provided to colorectal cancer survivors in the past two decades.Methods An electronic search was conducted in four databases including Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The search query was based on two concepts: the first concept represented colorectal cancer and the second one comprised of information technology tools. The search was limited to 20 years (from 19 January 1999 to 19 January 2019). Obtained results were tabulated and represented as a framework.Results Fifteen papers were included in this systematic review. Information including intervention type, eHealth tools, main features of the system, and outcomes were extracted from selected papers. Obtained results were characterized using a four-layer framework. This framework included layers of hardware, software, service (educating the patient, medication intake, physical activity, health status monitoring, hospital visit reminder, and discussion group), and outcome. Outcome layer was composed of the following domains: quality of life, psychological and cognitive, physical activity, physical functioning, symptoms, engagement, and the outcome of the process and IT tools.Conclusion eHealth could provide useful services for supporting colorectal cancer survivors. Represented framework might be used for a better understanding of current technology and services provided to support these survivors. Also, this framework may be used as a basis for designing eHealth applications for colorectal cancer survivors after further validations.
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?
Healthcare technology innovations frequently remain confined to small-scale demonstration initiatives.
“Healthcare technology innovations hold considerable promise for enhancing patient outcomes and service efficiency, but they frequently remain confined to small-scale demonstration initiatives [1–5].”
From The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 21
- Authors
- Ayyoubzadeh, S. M., R. Niakan Kalhori, S., Shirkhoda, M., Mohammadzadeh, N., & Esmaeili, M.
- Affiliations
- Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Supportive Care in Cancer
- Published
- 2020-03-09
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 3543-3555
- ISSN
- 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-7339
- OpenAlex
- W3009920135
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- colorectal cancer survivors, e-health, digital health interventions, cancer survivorship support services, quality of life, physical activity, health status monitoring, medication adherence, online forums, patient education
- MeSH terms
- Cancer Survivors, Health Status, Humans, Palliative Care, Quality of Life, Colorectal Neoplasms, Exercise, Databases, Factual, Telemedicine
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