Cited by 109Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsCancer survivorship and careDigital Mental Health Interventions

Feasibility, useability and acceptability of technology-based interventions for informal cancer carers: a systematic review

Open access
Heynsbergh, Natalie, Heckel, Leila, Botti, Mari, Livingston, Patricia M.·2018·BMC Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Carers looking after someone with cancer often experience negative impacts on their own health. M-health interventions have been designed to provide information and support to patients and their carers. However, the effectiveness of technology-based interventions for carers is less well understood. The objectives were to assess the feasibility, useability and acceptability of technology-based interventions among carers of people living with cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of the CINAHL, MEDLINE and PSYCINFO databases was performed using terms related to web-based interventions and smartphone applications, carers and cancer. Studies were included if a randomised controlled trial or pilot study was conducted, focused on adult carers looking after another adult with cancer and were published between January 2007-June 2017. Articles were excluded if they reported qualitative results only or were evaluating existing websites and applications. Feasibility was measured by attrition, recruitment rates and frequency of intervention use; useability was measured by the ease of intervention use and the role of features to minimise errors in use. Acceptability was measured by carers' perception of the appropriateness of the content and their ability to incorporate the intervention into their daily routines. RESULTS: Of the 729 articles, six articles met the inclusion criteria. Attrition ranged from 14% - 77%, recruitment rates from 20% - 66% and intervention useability varied across studies. Half of the studies implemented measures to improve useability. Overall, carers rated the content of the interventions as appropriate and reported improved knowledge and communication. Acceptability was further demonstrated as carers preferred the flexibility available with web-based interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Technology-based interventions are suitable for use among carers of people with cancer. Further research is required to fully assess the impact of technology as an information and support mechanism for carers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12885-018-4160-9

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heynsbergh, N., Heckel, L., Botti, M., & Livingston, P. M.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Heynsbergh, Natalie
Venue
BMC Cancer
Published
2018-03-02
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
244-244
ISSN
1471-2407 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794475018
Cited by
109
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Eastern Health Foundation
  • Deakin University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
technology-based interventions, mobile health, online intervention, mobile application, feasibility, acceptability, caregiver support, attrition, recruitment rate, intervention use
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Neoplasms, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Caregivers, Telemedicine, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review