CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsCancer survivorship and careDigital Mental Health Interventions

A systematic review of eHealth technologies for breast cancer supportive care

Gyawali, Bishal, Bowman, Meghan, Sharpe, Isobel, Jalink, Matthew, Srivastava, Siddhartha, Wijeratne, Don Thiwanka·2023·Cancer Treatment Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102519
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Breast cancer places a substantial burden on patient physical and mental wellbeing, and the delivery of high-quality supportive care is essential at all stages of the disease. Given the increased uptake of technology in recent years, eHealth interventions may be a convenient and accessible method for supportive care. Within this context, we conducted a systematic review to describe and quantify the use of eHealth for breast cancer supportive care. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for primary research studies published from 2016 to 2021 (present) that assessed the effects of eHealth interventions on adult patients with breast cancer. We explored the effects of the interventions on patient symptoms, lifestyle, satisfaction, and barriers, as well as factors related to feasibility and implementation. The risk of bias of each study was also assessed. Findings were presented according to stage of cancer care. We identified 43 relevant studies capturing n = 6,285 patients (30 randomized controlled trials and 13 non-randomized interventional studies); 5 evaluated patients who were newly diagnosed, 16 evaluated patients undergoing active treatment, and 22 evaluated patients in post-treatment follow-up. A total of 19 studies used mobile apps, 18 used online patient portals, 5 used text messaging, and 1 used both a patient portal and text messaging. We found that patients were broadly satisfied with the eHealth interventions; however, findings were less consistent for symptom and lifestyle-related outcomes. Eight studies were judged as high risk of bias. There was substantial between-study heterogeneity, which made it challenging to discern consistent trends. Overall, future research should continue to explore the use of eHealth for breast cancer supportive care, with a focus on improving patient symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102519

Cites

86 of 86 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 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gyawali, B., Bowman, M., Sharpe, I., Jalink, M., Srivastava, S., & Wijeratne, D. T.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Wijeratne, Don Thiwanka
ORCID
Venue
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
114
Pages
102519
ISSN
0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102519
OpenAlex
W4318205427
Cited by
28
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Cancer Treatment Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
e-health, breast cancer, supportive care, mobile health apps, patient portals, text messaging, patient satisfaction, symptom management, lifestyle, newly diagnosed breast cancer, cancer therapy, post-treatment follow-up
MeSH terms
Adult, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Quality of Health Care, 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