The DOI matches its Crossref record; 155 of the 156 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 20 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews
Open accessAbstract
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote cancer care delivery via the internet and telephone, rapidly accelerating an already growing care delivery model and associated research. This scoping review of reviews characterised the peer-reviewed literature reviews on digital health and telehealth interventions in cancer published from database inception up to May 1, 2022, from PubMed, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science. Eligible reviews conducted a systematic literature search. Data were extracted in duplicate via a pre-defined online survey. Following screening, 134 reviews met the eligibility criteria. 77 of those reviews were published since 2020. 128 reviews summarised interventions intended for patients, 18 addressed family caregivers, and five addressed health-care providers. 56 reviews did not target a specific phase of the cancer continuum, whereas 48 reviews tended to address the active treatment phase. 29 reviews included a meta-analysis, with results showing positive effects on quality of life, psychological outcomes, and screening behaviours. 83 reviews did not report intervention implementation outcomes but when reported, 36 reported acceptability, 32 feasibility, and 29 fidelity outcomes. Several notable gaps were identified in these literature reviews on digital health and telehealth in cancer care. No reviews specifically addressed older adults, bereavement, or sustainability of interventions and only two reviews focused on comparing telehealth to in-person interventions. Addressing these gaps with rigorous systematic reviews might help guide continued innovation in remote cancer care, particularly for older adults and bereaved families, and integrate and sustain these interventions within oncology.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This scoping review of reviews characterised 134 peer-reviewed literature reviews on digital health and telehealth interventions in cancer care published from database inception to May 1, 2022. It found a rapidly growing but uneven evidence base, with positive meta-analytic signals for some outcomes and major gaps in older adults, bereavement, provider wellness, implementation sustainability, and comparisons with in-person care.
Key findings
- 134 reviews met eligibility criteria; 77 were published since 2020, and the median number of studies included per review was 16 (range 0–121).
- 128 reviews (95·5%) addressed patient-level interventions, 18 (13·4%) included caregiver-level studies, and 5 (3·7%) addressed provider-level interventions; no reviews focused on older adult patients with cancer or caregivers.
- 29 reviews (21·6%) included a meta-analysis; positive effects were most commonly reported for quality of life (11 positive, 6 null), depression (9 positive, 4 null), anxiety (8 positive, 3 null), self-efficacy (5 positive, no null), physical activity (4 positive, 1 null), and cancer screenings (4 positive, no null).
- 83 reviews (61·9%) did not report implementation outcomes; when reported, acceptability was extracted in 36 (26·9%), feasibility in 32 (23·9%), and fidelity in 29 (21·6%), with no reviews extracting penetration or sustainability.
Methods
- Scoping review of reviews registered in INPLASY (protocol 3635) and reported per PRISMA for Scoping Reviews; searches covered PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science from database inception to May 1, 2022.
- Eligible records were English or English-translated peer-reviewed literature reviews using a systematic search method, focused on cancer populations and digital health or telehealth interventions as defined by the US Health Resources and Services Administration.
- Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate with Rayyan and Qualtrics; data were tabled and summarised, and implementation outcomes were categorised post hoc using Proctor and colleagues’ terminology.
Limitations
- The paper states that as a scoping review of reviews, identified gaps only establish that a review was not identified in a given area and might not generalise to the primary literature; it also notes that restricting to cancer could miss disease-agnostic reviews and that health equity information such as racial/ethnic composition or rurality was not extracted.
- Evident from the results: no reviews specifically addressed older adults, bereavement, sustainability of interventions, or oncology provider wellbeing, and only two reviews focused on comparing telehealth to in-person interventions.
- Evident from the results: 44 of 134 reviews (32·8%) did not report a quality or bias assessment, and 83 of 134 (61·9%) did not report implementation-related outcomes.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
66 Own result · 22 Not checked yet · 9 Own method · 3 Own interpretation · 1 Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although often assumed that digital health or telehealth interventions are a poor fit for older adults, there is substantial promise for this type of care to support independent ageing.148”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in populations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [148] Evangelista, 2019, Digital health care for older adults, Lancet source
The Digital medicine section says digital health technologies promise to help overcome barriers to healthy, independent ageing. It also identifies age-related obstacles to adoption, including visual and dexterity limitations and lack of confidence, while describing technologies that can support older adults living independently. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“77 of those reviews were published since 2020.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“128 reviews summarised interventions intended for patients”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“five addressed health-care providers”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“56 reviews did not target a specific phase of the cancer continuum”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following screening, 134 reviews met the eligibility criteria.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The remaining 134 reviews met eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“18 addressed family caregivers”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
plainn = 18- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“48 reviews tended to address the active treatment phase.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“29 reviews included a meta-analysis”
- Also stated in: § Review design · plain
“29 reviews (21·6%) included a meta-analysis of all or a subset of their included studies.”
- Also stated in: § Opportunities in review designs · hedged
“Approximately one-fifth of the reviews included a meta-analysis”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Review design · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with three specifically discussing these findings in a dedicated section.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in implementation outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 24
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“self-efficacy (five positive, no null)”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“anxiety (eight positive, three null)”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across meta-analyses, the most examined outcome was quality of life: 11 meta-analyses reported positive effects of interventions relative to control and six reported null findings.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses also frequently reported positive findings for interventions for outcomes including depression (nine positive effects, four null effects)”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the implementation outcomes data were extracted from early-stage research studies, with few reviews focusing on the implementation of digital health and telehealth interventions into routine care.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in implementation outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although there were reviews of interventions that could plausibly be fully automated,12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 36, 38, 52, 66 eligibility criteria did not require full automation, and incorporation of clinical support was unclear.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in interventions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“distress (two positive, two null)”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“pain (three positive, four null)”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a study of mobile applications that use AI to diagnose skin cancer or melanoma from skin lesion pictures, which concluded that evidence was insufficient (by the time of the review) to rely on AI to identify all diagnoses.22”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in interventions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Freeman, 2020, Algorithm based smartphone apps to assess risk of skin cancer in adults: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies, BMJ source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“One of the earliest identified reviews, Sanchez and colleagues’ 2013 review, stands out in its application of implementation frameworks to their review of internet-based cancer prevention and control interventions.124 This review highlighted the need for more pragmatic trial designs”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in implementation outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124] Sanchez, 2013, A systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control interventions: new technology, same methods and designs?, Transl Behav Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Included reviews were published as early as 2010, with a notable increase beginning in 2018”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, most reviews focused on interventions delivered to patients with cancer in the active treatment and survivorship phases using eHealth programs, synchronous calls by telephone or videoconferencing, and mobile applications.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median number of studies included in the reviews was 16 (range: 0–121).”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“physical activity (four positive, one null)”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Common conclusions drawn by reviews were that digital health and telehealth interventions were feasible and effective, but the need for larger-scale and robust efficacy testing remains.”
- Also stated in: § Opportunities in implementation outcomes · plain
“reviews since that time frequently concluded that findings were preliminary and more robust, larger-scale studies were needed.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Opportunities in implementation outcomes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“fatigue (five positive effects, five null effects)”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“five (3·7%) included the term integrative”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Kiss and colleagues89 focused on self-guided interventions but included those with minimal facilitation.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in interventions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [89] Kiss, 2019, Technology-supported self-guided nutrition and physical activity interventions for adults with cancer: systematic review, JMIR Mhealth Uhealth source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“cancer screenings (four positive, no null)”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“seven (5·2%) included the term scoping”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Results > Review design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which was pilot tested by coders.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods > Data extraction and summary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The protocol was registered (INPLASY protocol 3635)7”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Shaffer
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Full-text articles were reviewed by two of eight authors (KMS, KLT, CS, BDG, RU, JVG, RJF, or CAL), with discrepancies resolved by KMS or RU.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods > Selection and screening process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unpublished and grey literature were not pursued.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods > Search strategy and selection criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Coders were not masked to journals or authors during screening.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods > Selection and screening process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“we adhered to PRISMA for Scoping Reviews guidelines.8”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Tricco, 2018, PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation, Ann Intern Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data were extracted in duplicate via a pre-defined online survey.”
- Also stated in: § Data extraction and summary · plain
“Data were extracted independently by two of eight authors (KMS, KLT, CS, BDG, RU, JVG, RJF, CAL), with discrepancies resolved by KMS, RU, or JVG.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Data extraction and summary · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because we restricted the scope of our review to cancer, there could be reviews pertinent to identified gaps that are disease-agnostic.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“study titles and abstracts were reviewed by two of three coders (KMS, RU, or JVG). Discrepancies between coders were resolved by consensus.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods > Selection and screening process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the identified gaps in the literature only establish that a review was not identified in a given area of remote cancer care, which might not generalise to the primary literature.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Limitations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Articles were not blinded during data extraction.”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods > Data extraction and summary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Delivering interventions by telephone and internet—via phone calls, videoconferencing, mobile applications, and web pages—can reduce the time burdens of cancer treatment1 and extend access to evidence-based interventions”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Gupta, 2022, The time toxicity of cancer treatment, J Clin Oncol source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The included reviews were required to meet a priori eligibility criteria”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Methods > Eligibility criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Given the serious toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on health-care workers,160”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in interventions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [160] Dillon, 2022, Women, younger clinicians', and caregivers' experiences of burnout and well-being during COVID-19 in a US healthcare system, J Gen Intern Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“fully automated interventions provide greater scalability, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness.163”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in interventions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [163] Muñoz, 2022, Harnessing psychology and technology to contribute to making health care a universal human right, Cogn Behav Pract source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“one study of patients with uro-oncological cancer suggests similar interest in remote patient monitoring with digital technologies between older and younger patients, with older patients even reporting to be willing to engage with digital technologies as part of trials more frequently than younger patients.152”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [152] Rodler, 2021, Patients' perspective on digital technologies in advanced genitourinary cancers, Clin Genitourin Cancer source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As caregivers’ health-related needs and grief reactions differ by disease context,158, 159”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [158] Secinti, 2021, Health-related quality of life: a comparative analysis of caregivers of people with dementia, cancer, COPD/emphysema, and diabetes and noncaregivers, 2015–2018 BRFSS, Ann Behav Med source
- Not checked yetcites [159] Houck, 2007, A comparison of grief reactions in cancer, HIV/AIDS, and suicide bereavement, J HIV AIDS Soc Serv source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The COVID-19 pandemic required remote cancer care delivery and accelerated its growth.
“The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote cancer care delivery via the internet and telephone, rapidly accelerating an already growing care delivery model and associated research.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Digital health and telehealth practices can facilitate collaborative care across disciplines and overcome barriers family caregivers face in accessing their own health care.
“Digital health and telehealth practices hold promise for facilitating more collaborative care across health-care disciplines, and for overcoming many of the barriers family caregivers face to accessing their own health care.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Digital health practices can scale interventions to be more accessible and cost-effective by reducing reliance on health-care personnel.
“digital health practices are rapidly evolving and hold considerable promise for scaling interventions to be more accessible and cost-effective by reducing reliance on health-care personnel.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bereavement care for families is traditionally part of comprehensive palliative care.
“Although bereavement care for families is traditionally a component of comprehensive palliative care”
The paper relies on this without support.
This review is the first comprehensive scoping review of reviews on digital health and telehealth interventions across the cancer continuum.
“In this first-of-its-kind comprehensive scoping review of reviews on digital health and telehealth interventions across the cancer continuum, we summarised the existing review literature and identified several gaps.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, the pandemic also accelerated an unprecedented period of health system innovation and workforce transformation [5,6].”
From A Scoping Review of Implemented Innovations in Cancer Care: Implications for Pan-Canadian Scaling (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Many of these adaptations, initially introduced as emergency responses, are moving towards becoming sustainable and are being increasingly recognized as important strategies for addressing ongoing workforce shortages, improving access, and strengthening health system resilience in the post-pandemic era [2,3,5,6].”
From A Scoping Review of Implemented Innovations in Cancer Care: Implications for Pan-Canadian Scaling (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“31% (6/19)90”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in implementation outcomes
Reported 31 · recomputed 31.578947
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > Discussion > Opportunities in populations
“eg, Dionne-Odom and colleagues and Pearce and colleagues),154, 155”
§ Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews > References
“156. Pearce C Wong G Kuhn I Barclay S Supporting bereavement and complicated grief in primary care: a realist review BJGP Open 5 2021 BJGPO.2021.0008. PMC8278512 33653707”
Citations
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · Cited by 26,092
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n160 · Cited by 13,262
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 · Cited by 8,721
Schoeppe, S., Alley, S., Van Lippevelde, W., Bray, N. A., Williams, S. L., Duncan, M. J., & Vandelanotte, C. (2016) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-016-0454-y · Cited by 949
Linardon, J., Cuijpers, P., Carlbring, P., Messer, M., & Fuller‐Tyszkiewicz, M. (2019) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20673 · Cited by 860
Global strategy on digital health
Dhingra, D., & Dabas, A. (2020) · Indian Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/s13312-020-1789-7 · Cited by 656
Dionne-Odom, J. N., Azuero, A., Lyons, K. D., Hull, J. G., Tosteson, T. D., Li, Z., Li, Z., Frost, J., Dragnev, K. H., Akyar, İ., et al. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.58.7824 · Cited by 500 · cited 1×
“…a com ponent of comprehensive palliative care and was included in several of the digital health and telehealth palliative care programs covered in reviews (eg, Dionne-Odom and colleagues and Pearce and colleagues), 154,155 none of the reviews specifically addressed family caregiver bereavement.”
The time toxicity of cancer treatment
Gupta, A., Eisenhauer, E. A., & Booth, C. M. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.21.02810 · Cited by 356 · cited 1×
“…by telephone and internet—via phone calls, videoconferencing, mobile applications, and web pages—can reduce the time burdens of cancer treatment 1 and extend access to evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention and control, surveillance, supportive care, treatment decision making, and…”
Bender, J. L., Yue, R. Y. K., To, M. J., Deacken, L., & Jadad, A. R. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2661 · Cited by 346
Chirico, A., Lucidi, F., De Laurentiis, M., Milanese, C., Napoli, A., & Giordano, A. (2016) · Journal of Cellular Physiology · doi:10.1002/jcp.25117 · Cited by 342 · cited 1×
“Although there were reviews of interventions that could plausibly be fully automated, 12–14, 18 , 21 , 36”
Cancer Survivors’ Experience With Telehealth: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.
Cox, A., Lucas, G., Marcu, A., Piano, M., Grosvenor, W., Mold, F., Maguire, R., & Ream, E. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6575 · Cited by 330
Roberts, A., Fisher, A., Smith, L., Heinrich, M., & POTTS, H. W. W. (2017) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-017-0632-1 · Cited by 270
Silva, E. H., Lawler, S., & Langbecker, D. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-018-0730-8 · Cited by 267
Freeman, K., Dinnes, J., Chuchu, N., Takwoingi, Y., Bayliss, S. E., Matin, R. N., Jain, A., Walter, F. M., Williams, H. C., & Deeks, J. J. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m127 · Cited by 260 · cited 1×
“22 No reviews specifically focused on entirely self-guided psychological, behavioural, or educational interventions delivered without the support of any personnel.”
Teledermatology for the Diagnosis and Management of Skin Cancer: A Systematic Review
Finnane, A., Dallest, K., Janda, M., & Soyer, H. P. (2017) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4361 · Cited by 257
Zapka, J. G., Taplin, S. H., Solberg, L. I., & Manos, M. M. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 201
Warrington, L., Absolom, K. L., Conner, M. T., Kellar, I., Clayton, B., Ayres, M., & Velikova, G. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/10875 · Cited by 200
eHealth for improving quality of life in breast cancer patients: A systematic review
Triberti, S., Savioni, L., Sebri, V., & Pravettoni, G. (2019) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.01.003 · Cited by 184
Seiler, A., Klaas, V., Tröster, G., & Fagundes, C. P. (2017) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.4489 · Cited by 176
Ramsey, W. A., Heidelberg, R. E., Gilbert, A. M., Heneghan, M. B., Badawy, S. M., & Alberts, N. M. (2019) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5280 · Cited by 173
A systematic review of types and efficacy of online interventions for cancer patients.
McAlpine, H., Joubert, L., Martin-Sanchez, F., Merolli, M., & Drummond, K. J. (2015) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.11.002 · Cited by 160
Using technology to deliver cancer follow-up: a systematic review
Dickinson, R., Hall, S., Sinclair, J. E., Bond, C., & Murchie, P. (2014) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-311 · Cited by 146 · cited 1×
“61,68,90 Across all eight reviews, the proportion of primary studies including health economic outcomes ranged from 0% (0/8) 20 to 31% (6/19) 90 of included studies, with outcomes including direct costs, cost minimisation, and cost-effectiveness (eg, on quality-adjusted life-years).”
Research-Tested Mobile Apps for Breast Cancer Care: Systematic Review
Jongerius, C., Russo, S., Mazzocco, K., & Pravettoni, G. (2019) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/10930 · Cited by 146
Chan, R. J., Crichton, M., Crawford-Williams, F., Agbejule, O. A., Yu, K., Hart, N. H., de Abreu Alves, F., Ashbury, F. D., Eng, L., Fitch, M., et al. (2021) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.001 · Cited by 144
Text Messaging Interventions on Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review
Uy, C., López, J., Trinh‐Shevrin, C., Kwon, S. C., Sherman, S. E., & Liang, P. S. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7893 · Cited by 143
The use of eHealth to promote physical activity in cancer survivors: a systematic review
Haberlin, C., O’Dwyer, T., Mockler, D., Moran, J., O’Donnell, D. M., & Broderick, J. M. (2018) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-018-4305-z · Cited by 139
Agboola, S. O., Ju, W., Elfiky, A., Kvedar, J. C., & Jethwani, K. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4009 · Cited by 132
Li, Y., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Ding, Y., & Hu, X. (2022) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104179 · Cited by 130
Larson, J. L., Rosen, A. B., & Wilson, F. A. (2018) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2017.0112 · Cited by 127
Marthick, M., McGregor, D., Alison, J. A., Cheema, B. S., Dhillon, H. M., & Shaw, T. J. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/24722 · Cited by 124
Chen, Y.-Y., Guan, B.-S., Li, Z.-K., & Li, X.-Y. (2018) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x16686777 · Cited by 118
Bunevičienė, I., Mekary, R. A., Smith, T. R., Onnela, J.-P. “., & Bunevičius, A. (2020) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103123 · Cited by 117
How Effective Is Video Consultation in Clinical Oncology? A Systematic Review
Kitamura, C., Zurawel–Balaura, L., & Wong, R. K. S. (2010) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3747/co.v17i3.513 · Cited by 116
Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer
Ream, E., Hughes, A. E., Cox, A., Skarparis, K., Richardson, A., Pedersen, V. H., Wiseman, T., Forbes, A., & Bryant, A. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007568.pub2 · Cited by 113
Boulley, G. E., Leroy, T., Bernetière, C., Paquienséguy, F., Desfriches‐Doria, O., & Préau, M. (2018) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.4867 · Cited by 112
Heynsbergh, N., Heckel, L., Botti, M., & Livingston, P. M. (2018) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4160-9 · Cited by 109
Use of Smartphones for Early Detection of Melanoma: Systematic Review
Rat, C., Hild, S., Rault Sérandour, J., Gaultier, A., Quereux, G., Dreno, B., & Nguyen, J.-M. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9392 · Cited by 105
Social Media and mHealth Technology for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Ruco, A., Dossa, F., Tinmouth, J., Llovet, D., Jacobson, J., Kishibe, T., & Baxter, N. N. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/26759 · Cited by 105
The role of digital health technology in rural cancer care delivery: A systematic review
Morris, B. B., Rossi, B., & Fuemmeler, B. (2022) · The Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/jrh.12619 · Cited by 104 · cited 2×
“57,109,120,131,142”
Effects of web-based interventions on cancer patients’ symptoms: review of randomized trials
Fridriksdóttir, N., Gunnarsdóttir, S., Zoëga, S., Ingadóttir, B., & Hafsteinsdóttir, E. J. G. (2017) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-017-3882-6 · Cited by 99
Using Web-Based Interventions to Support Caregivers of Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review
Kaltenbaugh, D., Klem, M. L., Hu, L., Turi, E., Haines, A., & Hagerty Lingler, J. (2015) · Oncology Nursing Forum · doi:10.1188/15.onf.156-164 · Cited by 98
Digital health care for older adults
Evangelista, L., Steinhubl, S. R., & Topol, E. J. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30800-1 · Cited by 98 · cited 1×
“148 The adoption of digital technologies among older adults continues to rise, 149 and digital health and telehealth interventions can help alleviate common health-care barriers faced by older adults, such as rurality 150 and poverty.”
Digital interventions to support adolescents and young adults with cancer: systematic review
McCann, L., McMillan, K. A., & Pugh, G. (2019) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/12071 · Cited by 98
Xu, A., Wang, Y., & Wu, X. (2019) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.14197 · Cited by 98
Chow, H., Hon, J., Chua, W., & Chuan, A. (2021) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.08.016 · Cited by 98 · cited 1×
“Although there were reviews of interventions that could plausibly be fully automated, 12–14, 18 , 21 , 36”
Li, J., Liu, Y., Jiang, J., Peng, X., & Hu, X. (2021) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103970 · Cited by 98
Morrison, K. S., Paterson, C. C., & Toohey, K. L. (2020) · Seminars in Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2020.151092 · Cited by 94
Wang, Y., Lin, Y., Chen, J., Wang, C., Hu, R., & Wu, Y. (2020) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05383-3 · Cited by 91
Bouma, G., Admiraal, J. M., de Vries, E. G. E., Schröder, C. P., Walenkamp, A. M. E., & Reyners, A. K. L. (2015) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.01.011 · Cited by 90
Ahmad, M. M., Mohammad, E. B., & Anshasi, H. A. (2020) · Pain Management Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2020.04.002 · Cited by 89
Interventions Using Social Media for Cancer Prevention and Management
Han, C. J., Lee, Y. J., & Demiris, G. (2017) · Cancer Nursing · doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000000534 · Cited by 86
Dorri, S., Asadi, F., Olfatbakhsh, A., & Kazemi, A. (2019) · Breast Cancer · doi:10.1007/s12282-019-00982-3 · Cited by 86
An integrative review of supportive e-health programs in cancer care
Ventura, F. I. Q. S., Öhlén, J., & Koinberg, I. (2012) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2012.10.007 · Cited by 85
Badr, H., Carmack, C. L., & Diefenbach, M. A. (2015) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2014.965369 · Cited by 81
Larson, J. L., Rosen, A. B., & Wilson, F. A. (2019) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458219863604 · Cited by 81
Matis, J., Svetlak, M., Slezackova, A., Svoboda, M., & Šumec, R. (2020) · doi:10.2196/preprints.20709 · Cited by 81
Hong, Y. A., Hossain, M. M., & Chou, W. S. (2019) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5310 · Cited by 78 · cited 1×
“25,49,82,109,127 However, no reviews addressed tools for oncology health-care provider wellbeing.”
Osborn, J., Ajakaiye, A., Cooksley, T., & Subbe, C. P. (2019) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-019-04945-4 · Cited by 75
Tarver, W. L., & Haggstrom, D. A. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/10256 · Cited by 70 · cited 1×
“57,109,120,131,142”
Benefits of Mobile Apps for Cancer Pain Management: Systematic Review
Zheng, C., Chen, X., Weng, L., Guo, L., Xu, H., Lin, M., Xue, Y., Lin, X., Yang, A., Yu, L., et al. (2020) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/17055 · Cited by 69
Smartphone apps to help children and adolescents with cancer and their families: a scoping review
Mehdizadeh, H., Asadi, F., Mehrvar, A., Nazemi, E., & Emami, H. (2019) · Acta Oncologica · doi:10.1080/0284186x.2019.1588474 · Cited by 65
Moradian, S., Voelker, N., Brown, C., Liu, G., & Howell, D. (2017) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-017-3900-8 · Cited by 64
Telemedicine Use Among Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Systematic Review
Marzorati, C., Renzi, C., Russell‐Edu, W., & Pravettoni, G. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9812 · Cited by 64
Suh, S. R., & Lee, M. K. (2017) · Oncology nursing forum · doi:10.1188/17.onf.e168-e184 · Cited by 61
López‐Rodriguez, M. M., Fernández-Millan, A., Fernández, M. D. R., Dobarrio‐Sanz, I., & Fernández‐Medina, I. M. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17103563 · Cited by 61
Furness, K., Sarkies, M., Huggins, C. E., Croagh, D. G., & Haines, T. P. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16112 · Cited by 61
Bruce, A. F., Mallow, J. A., & Theeke, L. A. (2018) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x16686770 · Cited by 60
Interdisciplinary eHealth Practice in Cancer Care: A Review of the Literature
Janssen, A. L., Brunner, M., Keep, M., Hines, M., Nagarajan, S. V., Donnelly, C., Dennis, S. M., McKeough, Z. J., & Shaw, T. J. (2017) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph14111289 · Cited by 60 · cited 1×
“25,49,82,109,127 However, no reviews addressed tools for oncology health-care provider wellbeing.”
Ownsworth, T., Chan, R. J., Jones, S., Robertson, J., & Pinkham, M. B. (2020) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5549 · Cited by 58
Khoo, S., Mohbin, N., Ansari, P., Al-Kitani, M., & Müller, A. M. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18115798 · Cited by 57
Hopstaken, J. S., Verweij, L., van Laarhoven, C. J. H. M., Blijlevens, N. M. A., Stommel, M. W. J., & Hermens, R. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/28869 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“…of the included literature was restricted due to study samples comprising largely non-Hispanic White, highly educated, or breast cancer participants; 44,78,111 however, there were reviews specifically focused on underserved populations and studies in low-income and middle-income countries.”
Luo, X., Chen, Y., Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Li, M., Xiong, C., & Yan, J. (2022) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06568-0 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“There were three meta-analyses that addressed objective clinical outcomes like range-of-motion and lymphoedema, 14,50,52 with all three focusing on patients and survivors of breast cancer.”
Dillon, E. C., Stults, C. D., Deng, S., Martinez, M., Szwerinski, N., Koenig, P. T., Gregg, L., Cobb, J. K., Mahler, E., Frosch, D. L., et al. (2022) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-021-07134-4 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“Given the serious toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on health-care workers, 160 there is an opportunity to establish viable digital health and telehealth interventions to mitigate occupational-health effects under the ongoing pandemic conditions.”
Kopp, L. M., Gastelum, Z., Guerrero, C. H., Howe, C. L., Hingorani, P., & Hingle, M. (2017) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/pbc.26166 · Cited by 56 · cited 1×
“…of the included literature was restricted due to study samples comprising largely non-Hispanic White, highly educated, or breast cancer participants; 44,78,111 however, there were reviews specifically focused on underserved populations and studies in low-income and middle-income countries.”
Kiss, N., Baguley, B. J., Ball, K., Daly, R. M., Fraser, S. F., Granger, C. L., & Ugalde, A. (2019) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/12281 · Cited by 56
Bu, X., Ng, P. H. F., Xu, W., Cheng, Q., Chen, P. Q., Cheng, A. S. K., & Liu, X. (2022) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/31395 · Cited by 56 · cited 2×
“Although there were reviews of interventions that could plausibly be fully automated, 12–14, 18 , 21 , 36”
Online-based interventions for sexual health among individuals with cancer: a systematic review
Kang, H. S., Kim, H. K., Park, S. M., & Kim, J. (2018) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2972-6 · Cited by 55
Zhang, D., Advani, S., Waller, J., Cupertino, A.-P., Hurtado‐de‐Mendoza, A., Chicaiza, A., Rohloff, P. J., Akinyemiju, T., Gharzouzi, E., Huchko, M. J., et al. (2020) · JCO Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/jgo.19.00201 · Cited by 55 · cited 1×
“57,109,120,131,142”
Acceptability of telephone support as perceived by patients with cancer: A systematic review
Liptrott, S., Bee, P., & Lovell, K. (2018) · European Journal of Cancer Care · doi:10.1111/ecc.12643 · Cited by 54
Virtual Care in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review
Singh, S., Fletcher, G. G., Yao, X., & Sussman, J. (2021) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol28050301 · Cited by 54
Cho, Y., Zhang, H., Harris, M. R., Gong, Y., Smith, E. L., & Jiang, Y. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/24638 · Cited by 53
Forbes, C. C., Finlay, A., McIntosh, M., Siddiquee, S., & Short, C. E. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-018-0729-1 · Cited by 51
Weaver, M. S., Shostrom, V., Neumann, M. L., Robinson, J. E., & Hinds, P. S. (2021) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/pbc.28921 · Cited by 47 · cited 1×
“…a com ponent of comprehensive palliative care and was included in several of the digital health and telehealth palliative care programs covered in reviews (eg, Dionne-Odom and colleagues and Pearce and colleagues), 154,155 none of the reviews specifically addressed family caregiver bereavement.”
Coughlin, S. S., Thind, H. K., Liu, B., Champagne, N. J., Jacobs, M., & Massey, R. I. (2016) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.5361 · Cited by 45
Qan'ir, Y., & Song, L. (2019) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5158 · Cited by 45
Cai, J., Zhang, L., Guerriere, D., Fan, H., & Coyte, P. C. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18010235 · Cited by 45 · cited 1×
“153 Although bereavement care for families is traditionally a com ponent of comprehensive palliative care and was included in several of the digital health and telehealth palliative care programs covered in reviews (eg, Dionne-Odom and colleagues and Pearce and colleagues), 154,155 none of the…”
Houghton, L. C., Howland, R. E., & McDonald, J. A. (2019) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00298 · Cited by 44
Mobile health applications for the care of patients with breast cancer: A scoping review
Cai, T., Huang, Y., Zhang, Y., Lu, Z., Huang, Q., & Yuan, C. (2021) · International Journal of Nursing Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2021.07.003 · Cited by 44
Zhang, H., Xu, H., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051808 · Cited by 44 · cited 1×
“There were three meta-analyses that addressed objective clinical outcomes like range-of-motion and lymphoedema, 14,50,52 with all three focusing on patients and survivors of breast cancer.”
Ester, M., Eisele, M., Wurz, A. J., McDonough, M. H., McNeely, M. L., & Culos-Reed, S. N. (2021) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/28852 · Cited by 43
The Impact of Mobile Health on Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
Salmani, H., Ahmadi, M., & Shahrokhi, N. (2020) · Cancer Informatics · doi:10.1177/1176935120954191 · Cited by 42
Psychosocial telephone interventions for patients with cancer and survivors: a systematic review
Okuyama, S., Jones, W. C., Ricklefs, C. A., & Tran, Z. V. (2014) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.3704 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“…of the included literature was restricted due to study samples comprising largely non-Hispanic White, highly educated, or breast cancer participants; 44,78,111 however, there were reviews specifically focused on underserved populations and studies in low-income and middle-income countries.”
Pang, L., Liu, Z., Lin, S., Liu, Z., Liu, H., Mai, Z., Liu, Z., Chen, C., & Zhao, Q. (2020) · Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease · doi:10.1177/2040622320961597 · Cited by 41
Cheng, L., Duan, M., Mao, X., Ge, Y., Wang, Y., & Huang, H. (2020) · International Journal of Nursing Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.10.002 · Cited by 41
Sanchez, M. A., Rabin, B. A., Gaglio, B., Henton, M., Elzarrad, M. K., Purcell, P., & Glasgow, R. E. (2013) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13142-013-0224-1 · Cited by 40 · cited 1×
“124 This review highlighted the need for more pragmatic trial designs to accelerate the implementation of effective digital health and telehealth interventions into routine care.”
Rossman, A. H., Reid, H., Pieters, M. M., Mizelle, C., von Isenburg, M., Ramanujam, N., Huchko, M. J., & Vasudevan, L. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/23350 · Cited by 40 · cited 1×
“57,109,120,131,142”
Can skin cancer prevention be improved through mobile technology interventions? A systematic review
Finch, L. P., Janda, M., Loescher, L. J., & Hacker, E. (2016) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.06.037 · Cited by 38
Saeidzadeh, S., Kamalumpundi, V., Chi, N., Nair, R., & Gilbertson‐White, S. (2021) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/02692163211006317 · Cited by 37
Sotirova, M. B., McCaughan, E., Ramsey, L., Flannagan, C., Kerr, D. P., O'Connor, S. R., Blackburn, N. E., & Wilson, I. M. (2020) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-020-00931-6 · Cited by 36
Darley, A., Coughlan, B., & Furlong, E. (2021) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2021.102030 · Cited by 36
Internet of Things in active cancer Treatment: A systematic review
de Queiroz, D. A., da Costa, C. A., de Queiroz, E. A. I. F., da Silveira, É. F., & Righi, R. D. R. (2021) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2021.103814 · Cited by 35 · cited 1×
“One notable exception was a review by Albino de Queiroz and colleagues, 55 which compre hensively described the utility and results of applying the internet of things to cancer care.”
BackgroundBártolo, A., Pacheco, E., Rodrigues, F., Pereira, A., Monteiro, S. O. M., & Santos, I. M. (2017) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1411534 · Cited by 34
Comparing Outcomes of Genetic Counseling Options in Breast and Ovarian Cancer: An Integrative Review
Fournier, D. M., Bazzell, A. F., & Dains, J. E. (2017) · Oncology nursing forum · doi:10.1188/18.onf.96-105 · Cited by 34 · cited 1×
“61,68,90 Across all eight reviews, the proportion of primary studies including health economic outcomes ranged from 0% (0/8) 20 to 31% (6/19) 90 of included studies, with outcomes including direct costs, cost minimisation, and cost-effectiveness (eg, on quality-adjusted life-years).”
Chandeying, N., & Thongseiratch, T. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.784615 · Cited by 33
Koç, Z., Kaplan, E., & Tanrıverdi, D. (2024) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x211069663 · Cited by 33
Magalhães, B. M. B. D. S., Fernandes, C. S., Martínez‐Galiano, J. M., & Santos, C. (2020) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104293 · Cited by 32
Ibeggazene, S., Turner, R. R., Rosario, D. J., & Bourke, L. (2021) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-021-07989-0 · Cited by 32
Supporting bereavement and complicated grief in primary care: a realist review
Pearce, C., Wong, G., Kuhn, I. L., & Barclay, S. I. G. (2021) · BJGP Open · doi:10.3399/bjgpo.2021.0008 · Cited by 31 · cited 1×
“156,157 As caregivers’ health-related needs and grief reactions differ by disease context, 158,159 it is necessary to explore the availability, efficacy, and acceptability of digital health and telehealth interventions for cancer-related bereavement.”
Zhang, Q., Zhang, L., Yin, R., Fu, T., Chen, H., & Shen, B. (2017) · European Journal of Cancer Care · doi:10.1111/ecc.12632 · Cited by 29
Karim, H., Choobineh, H., Kheradbin, N., Hosseiniravandi, M., Naserpor, A., & Safdari, R. (2020) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/2055207620906956 · Cited by 29
Fung, J. Y. T., Lim, H., Vongsirimas, N., & Klainin‐Yobas, P. (2022) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x221078490 · Cited by 29
A Comparison of Grief Reactions in Cancer, HIV/AIDS, and Suicide Bereavement
Houck, J. A. (2007) · Journal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services · doi:10.1300/j187v06n03_07 · Cited by 28 · cited 1×
“156,157 As caregivers’ health-related needs and grief reactions differ by disease context, 158,159 it is necessary to explore the availability, efficacy, and acceptability of digital health and telehealth interventions for cancer-related bereavement.”
Hwang, N., Jung, Y., & Park, J. (2020) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare8040355 · Cited by 28
Li, J., Zhu, C., Liu, C., Su, Y., Peng, X., & Hu, X. (2021) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/jnu.12729 · Cited by 28
Patients' perspective on digital technologies in advanced genitourinary cancers
Rodler, S., Buchner, A., Stief, C. G., Heinemann, V., Staehler, M., & Casuscelli, J. (2021) · Clinical Genitourinary Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2020.03.018 · Cited by 27 · cited 1×
“152 Three reviews addressed telehealth interventions for individuals facing advanced cancer, including those at the end of life.”
Curry, J., Patterson, M., Greenley, S. L., Pearson, M., & Forbes, C. C. (2021) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06274-x · Cited by 27
Harnessing psychology and technology to contribute to making health care a universal human right
Muñoz, R. F. (2022) · Cognitive and Behavioral Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2019.07.003 · Cited by 26
Bhochhibhoya, S., Dobbs, P. D., & Maness, S. B. (2020) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106387 · Cited by 26
A Scoping Review of Interventions for Family Bereavement Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Laranjeira, C., Moura, D. R. D. O., Salci, M. A., Carreira, L., Covre, E. R., Jaques, A. E., Cuman, R. K. N., Marcon, S. S., & Querido, A. (2022) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs12050155 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“156,157 As caregivers’ health-related needs and grief reactions differ by disease context, 158,159 it is necessary to explore the availability, efficacy, and acceptability of digital health and telehealth interventions for cancer-related bereavement.”
Choi, J., Cho, Y., & Woo, H. (2018) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.8554 · Cited by 25
Digital interventions for adolescent and young adult cancer survivors
Viola, A., Panigrahi, G., & Devine, K. A. (2019) · Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · doi:10.1097/spc.0000000000000480 · Cited by 25
Wan, S. W., Chng, Y. J. D., Lim, S. H., Chong, C. S., Pikkarainen, M., & He, H. (2022) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.15258 · Cited by 25
Lim, N. L. Y., & Shorey, S. (2019) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.13974 · Cited by 23
Telerehabilitation and Monitoring Physical Activity in Patient with Breast Cancer
Keikha, L., Maserat, E., & Mohammadzadeh, Z. (2022) · Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research · doi:10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_472_20 · Cited by 23
Magalhães, B. M. B. D. S., Fernandes, C. S., Santos, C., & Martínez‐Galiano, J. M. (2020) · Cancer Nursing · doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000000823 · Cited by 22
Secinti, E., Lewson, A. B., Wu, W., Kent, E. E., & Mosher, C. E. (2021) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/abm/kaab007 · Cited by 22
Acuna, N., Vento, I., Alzate-Duque, L., & Valera, P. A. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Education · doi:10.1007/s13187-019-01624-0 · Cited by 21 · cited 1×
“Although there were reviews of interventions that could plausibly be fully automated, 12–14, 18 , 21 , 36”
Supporting colorectal cancer survivors using eHealth: a systematic review and framework suggestion
Ayyoubzadeh, S. M., R. Niakan Kalhori, S., Shirkhoda, M., Mohammadzadeh, N., & Esmaeili, M. (2020) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05372-6 · Cited by 21
Delemere, E., & Maguire, R. (2020) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5542 · Cited by 21
Thompson, H. S., Shelton, R. C., Mitchell, J. A., Eaton, T. A., Valera, P. A., & Katz, A. (2013) · JNCI Monographs · doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt031 · Cited by 20 · cited 1×
“57,109,120,131,142”
Soloe, C. S., Burrus, O., & Subramanian, S. (2021) · Journal of Cancer Education · doi:10.1007/s13187-021-01961-z · Cited by 20 · cited 1×
“25,49,82,109,127 However, no reviews addressed tools for oncology health-care provider wellbeing.”
Telephone follow-up of patients after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review
da Mata, L. R. F., da Silva, A. C., Pereira, M. G., & de Carvalho, E. C. (2014) · Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem · doi:10.1590/0104-1169.3314.2421 · Cited by 19
Bracke, X., Roberts, J., & McVeigh, T. P. (2021) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1343 · Cited by 19 · cited 1×
“This unique review by Bracke and colleagues 34 concluded that telehealth genetic counselling did not differ from in-person counselling regarding patients’ cancer-related distress or knowledge.”
Health information technology to support cancer survivorship care planning: A systematic review
Mikles, S. P., Griffin, A. C., & Chung, A. E. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab134 · Cited by 19 · cited 1×
“25,49,82,109,127 However, no reviews addressed tools for oncology health-care provider wellbeing.”
Kamalumpundi, V., Saeidzadeh, S., Chi, N., Nair, R., & Gilbertson‐White, S. (2021) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06496-z · Cited by 19
Elepaño, A. G., Fusingan, A. S., Yasay, E., & Sahagun, J. A. R. (2021) · Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.31557/apjcp.2021.22.10.3093 · Cited by 19
Moretto, I. G., Contim, C. L. V., & Santo, F. H. D. E. (2019) · Revista gaúcha de enfermagem · doi:10.1590/1983-1447.2019.20190039 · Cited by 18
Computerized programs for cancer survivors with cognitive problems: a systematic review
Kim, Y., & Kang, S. J. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-019-00807-4 · Cited by 18 · cited 1×
“Although there were reviews of interventions that could plausibly be fully automated, 12–14, 18 , 21 , 36”
Mobile Health in Adherence to Oral Anticancer Drugs
Gambalunga, F., Iacorossi, L., Notarnicola, I., Serra, V., Piredda, M., & Marinis, M. G. D. (2020) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000643 · Cited by 18
Ansari, N., Wilson, C. M., Heneghan, M. B., Supiano, K. P., & Mooney, K. H. (2022) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-022-07037-y · Cited by 18 · cited 1×
“17,23,73 Characterising the use and benefits of digital health and telehealth interventions for these populations is important as many patients with terminal cancer and their families prefer palliative care delivered at home versus a health-care facility.”
Text Messaging in Cancer-Supportive Care: A Systematic Review
Wijeratne, D. T., Bowman, M., Sharpe, I., Srivastava, S., Jalink, M., & Gyawali, B. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13143542 · Cited by 17
Mobile Health Interventions: Examining Medication Adherence Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer
Cazeau, N. (2021) · Clinical journal of oncology nursing · doi:10.1188/21.cjon.431-438 · Cited by 17
Hong, H. C., Min, A., & Kim, Y. M. (2021) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.14925 · Cited by 15
The Use of Virtual Care in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Scoping Review
Suleman, A., Vijenthira, A., Berlín, A., Prica, A. A., & Rodin, D. L. (2022) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol29020076 · Cited by 14
Goodman, W., Bagnall, A., Ashley, L., Azizoddin, D. R., Muehlensiepen, F., Blum, D., Bennett, M., & Allsop, M. J. (2022) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/33355 · Cited by 12 · cited 1×
“17,23,73 Characterising the use and benefits of digital health and telehealth interventions for these populations is important as many patients with terminal cancer and their families prefer palliative care delivered at home versus a health-care facility.”
Blackwood, J., & Rybicki, K. (2021) · Rehabilitation Oncology · doi:10.1097/01.reo.0000000000000249 · Cited by 11
Taylor, S., Hindmarch, S., Allsop, M. J., Radford, J. A., & Yorke, J. (2020) · Telemedicine Journal and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2019.0231 · Cited by 10
Kane, K., Kennedy, F., Absolom, K. L., Harley, C., & Velikova, G. (2021) · BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care · doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002820 · Cited by 7 · cited 1×
“17,23,73 Characterising the use and benefits of digital health and telehealth interventions for these populations is important as many patients with terminal cancer and their families prefer palliative care delivered at home versus a health-care facility.”
BackgroundChristopherson, U., Wells, S. J., Parker, N. H., Lyons, E., Swartz, M. D., Blozinski, A., Basen‐Engquist, K., Peterson, S., & Swartz, M. C. (2021) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-021-01065-z · Cited by 7
Mobile Health in Adherence to Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Scoping Review
(2021) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.ncn.0000726012.22814.7b · Cited by 7
Sezgin, M. G., & Bektaş, H. (2021) · Japan Journal of Nursing Science · doi:10.1111/jjns.12460 · Cited by 6
Öter, E. G. (2021) · Turkish Journal of Oncology · doi:10.5505/tjo.2021.3356 · Cited by 5
Yajima, M. C., Bowe, C., Barber, F. D., & Joyce Dains, D. (2021) · Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology · doi:10.6004/jadpro.2021.12.8.5 · Cited by 4
The Pediatric Cancer Survivors' User Experiences With Digital Health Interventions
Cheng, L., Liu, F., Mao, X., Peng, W., Wang, Y., Huang, H., Duan, M., Wang, Y., & Yuan, C. (2020) · Cancer Nursing · doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000000885 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Moretto, 2019, Santo FH do E. Telephone follow-up as a nursing intervention for patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy: integrative review, Rev Gaucha Enferm, 40
- Son, 2019, Use of health information technologies for cancer survivorship care: a comprehensive review of the literature, J Inform Nurs, 4, 6
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Telehealth vs In-Person Early Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer
Greer, J. A., Temel, J. S., El-Jawahri, A. R., Rinaldi, S. P., Kamdar, M. M., Park, E. R., Horick, N., Pintro, K., Rabideau, D. J., Schwamm, L. H., et al. (2024) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2024.13964 · Cited by 117
Challenges and prospects of visual contactless physiological monitoring in clinical study
Huang, B., Hu, S., Liu, Z., Lin, C., Su, J., Zhao, C., Wang, L., & Wang, W. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00973-x · Cited by 76
Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Cancer: Innovations, Applications, and Future Directions
Pham, T. D., Teh, M., Chatzopoulou, D., Holmes, S., & Coulthard, P. (2024) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol31090389 · Cited by 72
“Additionally, AI can facilitate virtual check-ins and telehealth consultations [141,142], making it easier for patients to access care and communicate with their healthcare providers, thereby improving adherence and overall engagement with their treatment.”
BackgroundYang, L., Courneya, K. S., & Friedenreich, C. M. (2024) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41416-024-02748-x · Cited by 49
“Home-based exercise interventions and other digital exercise options with low resource demands should be developed to meet the needs of the majority of the cancer survivor population [187].”
BackgroundKim, S.-D. (2024) · Technologies · doi:10.3390/technologies12050068 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaffer, K. M., Turner, K. L., Siwik, C., Gonzalez, B. D., Upasani, R., Glazer, J. V., Ferguson, R. J., Joshua, C., & Low, C. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shaffer, Kelly M
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Digital Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-05
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e316-e327
- ISSN
- 2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10124999
- OpenAlex
- W4366818779
- Semantic Scholar
- 36b38e0cea6f96900f44dbc9e69c6a4fe4cf7e1d
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 156
- Citations by year
- 2026: 98 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 11
- FWCI
- 13.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA076292, R37CA242545, P30CA047904)
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (L30 AT011624, T32AT003997)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Keywords
- digital health, telemedicine, cancer care, COVID-19 pandemic, family caregivers, quality of life, psychological outcomes, cancer screening, older adults, bereavement, intervention sustainability
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, Aged, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Review Literature as Topic, Telemedicine, Pandemics
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
