Cited by 98Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life

Digital interventions to support adolescents and young adults with cancer: systematic review

Open access
McCann, Lisa, McMillan, Kathryn Anne, Pugh, Gemma·2019·JMIR Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen an increase in the number of digital health interventions designed to support adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to identify, characterize, and fully assess the quality, feasibility, and efficacy of existing digital health interventions developed specifically for AYAs, aged between 13 and 39 years, living with or beyond a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify digital health interventions designed specifically for AYA living with or beyond a cancer diagnosis. Data on the characteristics and outcomes of each intervention were synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 4731 intervention studies were identified through the searches; 38 interventions (43 research papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most (20/38, 53%) were website-based interventions. Most studies focused on symptom management and medication adherence (15, 39%), behavior change (15, 39%), self-care (8, 21%), and emotional health (7, 18%). Most digital health interventions included multiple automated and communicative functions such as enriched information environments, automated follow-up messages, and access to peer support. Where reported (20, 53% of studies), AYAs' subjective experience of using the digital platform was typically positive. The overall quality of the studies was found to be good (mean Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields scores >68%). Some studies reported feasibility outcomes (uptake, acceptability, and attrition) but were not sufficiently powered to comment on intervention effects. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous digital interventions have been developed and designed to support young people living with and beyond a diagnosis of cancer. However, many of these interventions have yet to be deployed, implemented, and evaluated at scale.

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 · 10.2196/12071

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • Two recent reviews on e-mental health interventions in patients with breast cancer and young adult patients emphasised the impact of e-mental health interventions and stressed the need for well-designed multicentre RCTs.

    “two recent reviews on e-mental health interventions in (1) patients with breast cancer and (2) young adult patients emphasised the impact of e-mental health interventions and stressed the need for well-designed multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs).”

    From Web-based mindfulness and skills-based distress reduction for patients with cancer: study protocol of the multicentre, randomised, controlled confirmatory intervention trial Reduct (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Discussion > Conclusions (page not provided) calls for larger-scale, robust evaluations to establish the impact of digital interventions for adolescents and young adults with cancer. But it says that impact is not yet established and does not specifically call for multicentre RCTs; the review also covers digital health interventions broadly, not just e-mental health interventions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCann, L., McMillan, K. A., & Pugh, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Strathclyde (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
McCann, Lisa
Venue
JMIR Cancer
Published
2019-07-31
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
e12071
ISSN
2369-1999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2976467698
Cited by
98
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (acceptedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Beatson Cancer Charity
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Keywords
digital health interventions, adolescent and young adult cancer, cancer survivorship, symptom management, medication adherence, behavior change, self-care, emotional well-being, peer support, feasibility, acceptability

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