Cited by 54Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsCancer survivorship and care

Virtual Care in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review

Open access
Singh, Simron, Fletcher, Glenn G., Yao, Xiaomei, Sussman, Jonathan·2021·Current Oncology

Abstract

Virtual care in cancer care existed in a limited fashion globally before the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly driven by geographic constraints. The pandemic has required dramatic shifts in health care delivery, including cancer care. We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating virtual versus in-person care in patients with cancer. Embase, APA PsycInfo, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for literature from January 2015 to 6 August 2020. We adhered to PRISMA guidelines and used the modified GRADE approach to evaluate the data. We included 34 full-text publications of 10 randomized controlled trials, 13 non-randomized comparative studies, and 5 ongoing randomized controlled trials. Evidence was divided into studies that provide psychosocial or genetic counselling and those that provide or assess medical and supportive care. The limited data in this review support that in the general field of psychological counselling, virtual or remote counselling can be equivalent to in-person counselling. In the area of genetic counselling, telephone counselling was more convenient and noninferior to usual care for all outcomes (knowledge, decision conflict, cancer distress, perceived stress, genetic counseling satisfaction). There are few data for clinical outcomes and supportive care. Future research should assess the role of virtual care in these areas. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020202871.

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 · 10.3390/curroncol28050301

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 54

Authors
Singh, S., Fletcher, G. G., Yao, X., & Sussman, J.
Affiliations
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Sussman, Jonathan
Venue
Current Oncology
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
3488-3506
ISSN
  • 1198-0052 (ISSN-L)
  • 1718-7729
OpenAlex
W3196648826
Cited by
54
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Cancer Care Ontario
  • McMaster University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
virtual care, cancer care, telemedicine, psychosocial counseling, genetic counseling, supportive care, COVID-19 pandemic, decisional conflict, cancer-related distress, perceived stress
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Humans, Neoplasms, 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.

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