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
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
