Cited by 155Cancer survivorship and careHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health Education

Outcomes of online support and resources for cancer survivors: A systematic literature review

Hong, Yan, Peña-Purcell, Ninfa C., Ory, Marcia G.·2012·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective This study aims to review systematically the available literature on health outcomes of online cancer support and resources.Methods We searched major databases with the following selection criteria: (1) empirical study on use of online support or resources by cancer survivors, (2) reporting effects or outcomes of online support or resources, (3) focusing on adult cancer survivors, and (4) peer-reviewed articles published by 2010.Results A total of 24 studies (37 articles) were included in the review. Most studies were focused on breast cancer survivors and had small sample sizes. Fifteen studies employed a cross-sectional design including eight qualitative studies. Only five studies used pre-post design, and four employed RCT design. The outcome measures have focused on psychosocial effects; most studies reported positive effects, although none of the RCT studies reported significant outcomes.Conclusion Existing studies of online cancer support and resources have demonstrated preliminary but inconclusive evidence for positive outcomes. We call for additional studies with rigorous study designs and the inclusion of more diverse participants and cancer conditions.Practice implications Connecting diverse cancer survivors to culturally appropriate, evidence-based online support and resources is a strategy to enhance health outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2011.06.014

Cites

63 of 63 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hong, Y., Peña-Purcell, N. C., & Ory, M. G.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
  • Texas A&M University System (US)
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
86
Issue
3
Pages
288-296
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021636805
Cited by
155
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (5U48 DP000045, 1U48DP001924)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
cancer survivors, online support, online resources, health outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, breast cancer survivors, digital health interventions
MeSH terms
Adult, Breast Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Female, Health Education, Humans, Information Services, Male, Patient Education as Topic, Self-Help Groups, Social Support, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Survivors, 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