PreprintCited by 81Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCancer survivorship and careDigital Mental Health Interventions

Mindfulness-Based Programs for Patients With Cancer via eHealth and Mobile Health: Systematic Review and Synthesis of Quantitative Research (Preprint)

Open access
Matis, Juraj, Svetlak, Miroslav, Slezackova, Alena, Svoboda, Marek, Šumec, Rastislav·2020·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: eHealth mindfulness-based programs (eMBPs) are on the rise in complex oncology and palliative care. However, we are still at the beginning of answering the questions of how effective eMBPs are and for whom, and what kinds of delivery modes are the most efficient. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to examine the feasibility and efficacy of eMBPs in improving the mental health and well-being of patients with cancer, to describe intervention characteristics and delivery modes of these programs, and to summarize the results of the included studies in terms of moderators, mediators, and predictors of efficacy, adherence, and attrition. METHODS: In total, 4 databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge) were searched using relevant search terms (eg, mindfulness, program, eHealth, neoplasm) and their variations. No restrictions were imposed on language or publication type. The results of the efficacy of eMBPs were synthesized through the summarizing effect estimates method. RESULTS: A total of 29 published papers describing 24 original studies were included in this review. In general, the results indicate that eMBPs have the potential to reduce the levels of stress, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep problems, and pain, and improve the levels of mindfulness, posttraumatic growth, and some parameters of general health. The largest median of Cohen d effect sizes were observed in reducing anxiety and depression (within-subject: median −0.38, IQR −0.62 to −0.27; between-group: median −0.42, IQR −0.58 to −0.22) and facilitating posttraumatic growth (within-subject: median 0.42, IQR 0.35 to 0.48; between-group: median 0.32, IQR 0.22 to 0.39). The efficacy of eMBP may be comparable with that of parallel, face-to-face MBPs in some cases. All studies that evaluated the feasibility of eMBPs reported that they are feasible for patients with cancer. Potential moderators, mediators, and predictors of the efficacy, attrition, and adherence of eMBPs are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effects of the reviewed studies were highly heterogeneous, the review provides evidence that eMBPs are an appropriate way for mindfulness practice to be delivered to patients with cancer. Thus far, existing eMBPs have mostly attempted to convert proven face-to-face mindfulness programs to the eHealth mode. They have not yet fully exploited the potential of eHealth technology.

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/preprints.20709

Cites

140 of 140 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?

  • The proportion of dropout was within the range of other self-guided eHealth/web-based interventions.

    “Although dropout occurred, the proportion was within the range of other self-guided eHealth/web-based interventions [34].”

    From Changes of Symptoms of Anxiety, Depression, and Fatigue in Cancer Patients 3 Months after a Video-Based Intervention (2023) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Discussion (Attrition Rate; page unavailable) says dropout in the reviewed eHealth mindfulness programs was within the range reported by another review of such programs. It does not establish that the comparison range was specifically for self-guided eHealth or web-based interventions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mindfulness-based eHealth interventions are feasible and effective in improving different outcomes in patients with cancer.

    “Matis and colleagues conclude in their systematic literature review that mindfulness-based eHealth interventions are feasible and effective in improving different outcomes in patients with cancer.”

    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 [23]

    The Discussion’s Conclusions state that these programs are feasible for patients with cancer and may improve various outcomes, especially anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic growth. The citing sentence drops the source’s uncertainty about effectiveness; the Principal Findings also caution that results vary across studies and may be overestimated. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Beneficial effects of mindfulness extend to web-delivered MBSR.

    “Moreover, research indicates that these beneficial effects of mindfulness extend to web-delivered MBSR (39).”

    From Mindfulness and skills-based eHealth intervention to reduce distress in cancer-affected patients in the Reduct trial: Intervention protocol of the make it training optimized (2022) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Discussion > Efficacy section reports beneficial effects of electronically delivered mindfulness-based programs in patients with cancer. The Results > Efficacy section identifies an online MBSR intervention, but the review’s overall efficacy finding covers a broader mix of programs rather than establishing those benefits specifically for web-delivered MBSR. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Little is known about possible predictors of treatment response in iMBIs.

    “Despite being shown efficacious, little is known about possible predictors of treatment response in iMBIs (Matis et al., 2020).”

    From Internet-delivered Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for anxiety and depression in cancer survivors: Predictors of treatment response (2021) · cites this paper as Matis et al., 2020

    The Discussion (Efficacy) says only nine reviewed studies analyzed predictors of adherence or efficacy, and Future Directions says questions about who benefits remain open. This supports limited knowledge of treatment-response predictors for eHealth mindfulness programs in patients with cancer, but the claim extends that conclusion to iMBIs generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Online delivery of group interventions has shown good feasibility in previous studies.

    “Online delivery of group interventions has shown good feasibility in previous studies (e.g., [43]).”

    From A randomized controlled trial of a multi-modal palliative care intervention to promote advance care planning and psychological well-being among adults with advanced cancer: study protocol. (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Results > Feasibility section reports that all 12 studies assessing feasibility as a primary outcome concluded that online mindfulness-based programs were feasible for patients with cancer. The Results > Intervention Characteristics section includes videoconference delivery, but the review does not establish feasibility specifically for online group interventions. No page numbers are available in our copy. (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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [13]Baer R Mindfulness-Based Treatment Approaches: Clinician's Guide to Evidence Base and Applications Internet 2014 London, UK Academic Press
  2. [34]Bartley T A Kindly Approach to Being with Cancer 2016 New York, USA John Wiley & Sons
  3. [38]Prochaska J Norcross J Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis. 5th Edition 2003 Pacific Grove, CA Brooks/Cole Pub
  4. [55]Bartley T A Kindly Approach to Being with Cancer 2016 New York, USA John Wiley & Sons
  5. [67]Cohen J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition 1988 New York, USA Routledge

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matis, J., Svetlak, M., Slezackova, A., Svoboda, M., & Šumec, R.
Affiliations
  • Masaryk University (CZ)
  • Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute (CZ)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
22
Issue
11
Pages
e20709-e20709
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3091096421
Cited by
81
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mindfulness program, e-health, mobile health, cancer patients, mental health, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic growth, fatigue, sleep disorders, pain, mode of delivery, palliative care, cancer care, feasibility, well-being, digital mental health interventions, patient-reported outcomes, quality of life
MeSH terms
Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Neoplasms, Telemedicine, Mindfulness

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