The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Feasibility, useability and acceptability of technology-based interventions for informal cancer carers: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
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.
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
“Another systematic review [33] found e-Health interventions to be feasible, usable, and acceptable for caregivers of cancer survivors.”
From It is time to address fear of cancer recurrence in family caregivers: protocol for the feasibility and acceptability of a randomized pilot study of the online version of the Family Caregiver–Fear Of Recurrence Therapy (FC-FORT) (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,762
How we design feasibility studies
Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., Bakken, S., Kaplan, C. P., Squiers, L., Fabrizio, C., et al. (2009) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 · Cited by 4,021 · cited 2×
“In developing a technology-based intervention, it is important to determine if the content of the intervention is useful and acceptable for end users, if the intervention can be used to sustain their wellbeing and if technology itself does not create any barrier to access [22].”
BackgroundWhiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Caregiver Burden: A Clinical Review
Adelman, R. D., Tmanova, L. L., Delgado, D., Dion, S., & Lachs, M. S. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.304 · Cited by 2,002
The digital divide shifts to differences in usage
van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2014) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444813487959 · Cited by 1,733 · cited 1×
“Age may have an impact on the likelihood of carers using technology over other information methods and possessing the skills to navigate technology-based interventions [23].”
BackgroundInterpreting trends in cancer patient survival
DICKMAN, P. W., & ADAMI, H. ‐. (2006) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01677.x · Cited by 508
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–109 of 109
Chapel, B., Alexandre, F., Heraud, N., Ologeanu‐Taddei, R., Cases, A.-S., Bughin, F., & Hayot, M. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20423692
Chapel, B., Alexandre, F., Heraud, N., Ologeanu‐Taddei, R., Cases, A.-S., Bughin, F., & Hayot, M. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20423689
Chapel, B., Alexandre, F., Heraud, N., Ologeanu‐Taddei, R., Cases, A.-S., Bughin, F., & Hayot, M. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20423698
Chapel, B., Alexandre, F., Heraud, N., Ologeanu‐Taddei, R., Cases, A.-S., Bughin, F., & Hayot, M. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20423701
Sezgin, E., Booze, A. M., Wisne, L. M., Jackson, D. I., & Skeens, M. A. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2025.12.03.25341557
Acquati, C., Aratow, M., Nazreen, T., Bhattacharjee, A., Marra, I., & Alexander, A. S. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/83276
Compétences émotionnelles et besoins en soins de support des proches-aidants en oncologie
Baudry, A. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b465f764z1c06z4615z8396z34681493ee98
von Dungen, K., Herschbach, P., Gündel, H., & Hönig, K. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-114769
Emmanuel, P. A., Coburn, K. O., Parra, G. R., & Dalla, R. L. (2026) · Telemedicine Journal and e-Health · doi:10.1177/15305627261472295
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC5834845
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
