Dataset Information

EHealth Interventions for Dutch Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using the Triple Aim Lens.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Globally, the burden of cancer on population health is growing. Recent trends such as increasing survival rates have resulted in a need to adapt cancer care to ensure a good care experience and manageable expenditures. eHealth is a promising way to increase the quality of cancer care and support patients and survivors.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was 2-fold. First, we aimed to provide an overview of eHealth interventions and their characteristics for Dutch patients with and survivors of cancer. Second, we aimed to provide an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the impact of eHealth interventions in cancer care on population health, quality of care, and per capita costs (the Triple Aim domains).

Methods

The electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Ovid PsycINFO were searched using 3 key search themes: eHealth interventions, cancer care, and the Netherlands. The identified interventions were classified according to predetermined criteria describing the intervention characteristics (eg, type, function, and target population). Their impact was subsequently examined using the Triple Aim framework.

Results

A total of 38 interventions were identified. Most of these were web portals or web applications functioning to inform and self-manage, and target psychosocial factors or problems. Few interventions have been tailored to age, disease severity, or gender. The results of this study indicate that eHealth interventions could positively affect sleep quality, fatigue, and physical activity of patients with and survivors of cancer. Inconclusive results were found regarding daily functioning and quality of life, psychological complaints, and psychological adjustment to the disease.

Conclusions

eHealth can improve outcomes in the Triple Aim domains, particularly in the population health and quality of care domains. Cancer-related pain and common symptoms of active treatment were not targeted in the included interventions and should receive more attention. Further research is needed to fully understand the impact of eHealth interventions in cancer care on participation, accessibility, and costs. The latter can be examined in economic evaluations by comparing eHealth interventions with care as usual.

SUBMITTER: van Deursen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9240931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS:A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS:A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS:This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

Project description:BackgroundUntil now, the use of technology in health care was driven mostly by the assumptions about the benefits of electronic health (eHealth) rather than its evidence. It is noticeable that the magnitude of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth is not proportionate to the number of interventions that are regularly conducted. Reliable evidence generated through comprehensive evaluation of eHealth interventions may accelerate the growth of eHealth for long-term successful implementation and help to experience eHealth benefits in an enhanced way.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand how the evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth can be generated through evaluation. Hence, we aim to discern (1) how evaluation is conducted in distinct eHealth intervention phases, (2) the aspects of effectiveness and efficiency that are typically evaluated during eHealth interventions, and (3) how eHealth interventions are evaluated in practice.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to explore the evaluation methods for eHealth interventions. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched Google Scholar and Scopus for the published papers that addressed the evaluation of eHealth or described an eHealth intervention study. A qualitative analysis of the selected papers was conducted in several steps.ResultsWe intended to see how the process of evaluation unfolds in distinct phases of an eHealth intervention. We revealed that in practice and in several conceptual papers, evaluation is performed at the end of the intervention. There are some studies that discuss the importance of conducting evaluation throughout the intervention; however, in practice, we found no case study that followed this. For our second research question, we discovered aspects of efficiency and effectiveness that are proposed to be assessed during interventions. The aspects that were recurrent in the conceptual papers include clinical, human and social, organizational, technological, cost, ethical and legal, and transferability. However, the case studies reviewed only evaluate the clinical and human and social aspects. At the end of the paper, we discussed a novel approach to look into the evaluation. Our intention was to stir up a discussion around this approach with the hope that it might be able to gather evidence in a comprehensive and credible way.ConclusionsThe importance of evidence in eHealth has not been discussed as rigorously as have the diverse evaluation approaches and evaluation frameworks. Further research directed toward evidence-based evaluation can not only improve the quality of intervention studies but also facilitate successful long-term implementation of eHealth in general. We conclude that the development of more robust and comprehensive evaluation of eHealth studies or an improved validation of evaluation methods could ease the transferability of results among similar studies. Thus, the resources can be used for supplementary research in eHealth.

Project description:BackgroundLactation support resources are less likely to be located in close proximity to where Black families live and there is a systemic racist health care belief that Black women prefer bottle feeding (with infant formula) over breastfeeding. Together, these lead to lower reported breastfeeding rates of Black babies compared to other racial / ethnic groups. It is imperative to have a deeper understanding of the cultural aspects as well as the underlying limitations that prevent Black women / persons from being supported to breastfeed. There is a need to know how effective breastfeeding interventions are in reaching the intended population; how well they work in promoting breastfeeding initiation and continuation; and how successful they are when implemented at the setting and staff level. The purpose of this investigation was to establish the level of internal and external validity that was reported by breastfeeding intervention studies among Black communities.MethodsStudies on breastfeeding interventions on Black people that were published between the years 1990 and 2019 were carefully examined through PubMed, EBSCOhost, Web of Science, and OneSearch. A total of 31 studies fulfilled the requirements to be included for this evaluation. In order to extract the information from the articles, the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework extraction tool was utilized.ResultsOn average, the proportion of studies that reported across reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance indicators was 54, 35, 19, 48, and 9%, respectively. Across core RE-AIM indicators only sample size (100%) and breastfeeding outcomes (90%) were reported consistently. External validity indicators related to representativeness of participants (16%) and sites (3%) were rarely reported. Similarly, adherence to intervention protocol, and indicator of internal validity, was reported in a small proportion of articles (19%).ConclusionThis body of literature under-reported on aspects associated to both internal and external validity across all RE-AIM domains. The reporting of the individual level of representativeness; the setting level of representativeness; the intervention's adherence to the protocol; the expenses; and the factors of sustainability would benefit from improvement in future research.

Project description:IntroductionAfrica's young people are among the least focused groups in healthcare linkage. The disproportionally high burden of youth-related health problems is a burden, especially in developing regions like Africa, which have a high population of young people. More information is needed about factors that impact linkages in healthcare and the sustainability of health interventions among young people in Africa.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed from October 2020 to May 2022 in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Global Health, and the Web of Science. Studies included in the review were conducted among young people aged 10-24 living in Africa, written in English, and published between 2011 and 2021. Results were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Data was analyzed using narrative synthesis, synthesizing the details of the RE-AIM reporting component. Interventions were systematically compared using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool to evaluate the rigor of each intervention.ResultsA total of 2,383 potentially relevant citations were obtained after an initial database search. Retained in the final group were seventeen articles from electronic data searches; among these articles, 16 interventions were identified. Out of the seventeen studies, nine (53%) were randomized controlled trials, three (18%) were quasi-experimental designs, and five (29%) were observational studies. At the same time, the included interventions were reported on 20 (76.92%) of the 26 components of the RE-AIM dimensions. In eastern Africa, twelve (80%) interventions were conducted, and all the interventions addressed linkage to care for young people in preventing and treating HIV. The least reported RE-AIM dimensions were implementing and maintaining interventions connecting young people to care.DiscussionTimely care remains critical to treating and preventing ailments. This review indicates that interventions created to link young people to care, especially HIV care, can help link them to health care and strengthen the programs. It is also clear that further research with more extended follow-up periods is needed to examine connections to care in all other aspects of health and to bridge the gap between research and practice in the care of young people in Africa.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO [CRD42022288227].

Project description:BackgroundRapid advancements in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) technologies have driven researchers to design and evaluate numerous technology-based interventions to promote smoking cessation. The evolving nature of cessation interventions emphasizes a strong need for knowledge synthesis.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize recent evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based smoking cessation interventions in promoting abstinence and assess nonabstinence outcome indicators, such as cigarette consumption and user satisfaction, via narrative synthesis.MethodsWe searched for studies published in English between 2017 and June 30, 2022, in 4 databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We pooled comparable studies based on the population, follow-up time, intervention, and control characteristics. Two researchers performed an independent meta-analysis on smoking abstinence using the Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model and log risk ratio (RR) as the effect measurement. For studies not included in the meta-analysis, the outcomes were narratively synthesized.ResultsA total of 464 studies were identified through an initial database search after removing duplicates. Following screening and full-text assessments, we deemed 39 studies (n=37,341 participants) eligible for this review. Of these, 28 studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis. According to the meta-analysis, SMS or app text messaging can significantly increase both short-term (3 months) abstinence (log RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.75; I2=0.72%) and long-term (6 months) abstinence (log RR=0.77, 95% CI 0.49-1.04; I2=8.65%), relative to minimal cessation support. The frequency of texting did not significantly influence treatment outcomes. mHealth apps may significantly increase abstinence in the short term (log RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.09-1.42; I2=88.02%) but not in the long term (log RR=0.15, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.48; I2=80.06%), in contrast to less intensive cessation support. In addition, personalized or interactive interventions showed a moderate increase in cessation for both the short term (log RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.30-0.94; I2=66.50%) and long term (log RR=0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53; I2=73.42%). In contrast, studies without any personalized or interactive features had no significant impact. Finally, the treatment effect was similar between trials that used biochemically verified or self-reported abstinence. Among studies reporting outcomes besides abstinence (n=20), a total of 11 studies reported significantly improved nonabstinence outcomes in cigarette consumption (3/14, 21%) or user satisfaction (8/19, 42%).ConclusionsOur review of 39 randomized controlled trials found that recent eHealth interventions might promote smoking cessation, with mHealth being the dominant approach. Despite their success, the effectiveness of such interventions may diminish with time. The design of more personalized interventions could potentially benefit future studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022347104; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=347104.

Project description:BackgroundAn estimated 12.8% of children and adolescents experience chronic health conditions that lead to poor quality of life, adjustment and coping issues, and concurrent mental health problems. Digital health deployment of psychosocial interventions to support youth with chronic illness has become increasingly popular with the advent of the technological advances in the digital age.ObjectiveOur objectives were to systematically review published efficacy studies of eHealth and mHealth (mobile health) psychosocial interventions for youths with chronic illnesses and review intervention theory and treatment components.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies published from 2008 to 2019 of eHealth and mHealth psychosocial interventions designed for children and adolescents with chronic illnesses in which efficacy outcomes were reported. We excluded studies of interventions for caregivers, healthy youth, disease and medication management, and telehealth interventions that function solely as a platform to connect patients to providers via phone, text, or videoconference.ResultsWe screened 2551 articles and 133 relevant full-text articles. Sixteen efficacy studies with psychosocial and health outcomes representing 12 unique interventions met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 12 were randomized controlled trials and 4 were prospective cohort studies with no comparison group. Most interventions were based in cognitive behavioral theory and designed as eHealth interventions; only 2 were designed as mHealth interventions. All but 2 interventions provided access to support staff via text, phone, email, or discussion forums. The significant heterogeneity in intervention content, intervention structure, medical diagnoses, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. For example, measurement time points ranged from immediately postcompletion of the mHealth program to 18 months later, and we identified 39 unique outcomes of interest. The majority of included studies (11/16, 69%) reported significant changes in measured health and/or psychosocial posttreatment outcomes, with small to large effect sizes.ConclusionsAlthough the available literature on the efficacy of eHealth and mHealth psychosocial interventions for youth with chronic illnesses is limited, preliminary research suggests some evidence of positive treatment responses. Future studies should continue to evaluate whether digital health platforms may be a viable alternative model of delivery to traditional face-to-face approaches.

Project description:BackgroundeHealth literacy is a key concept in the implementation of eHealth resources. However, most eHealth literacy definitions and frameworks are designed from the perceptive of the individual receiving eHealth care, which do not include health care providers' eHealth literacy or acceptance of delivering eHealth resources.AimsTo identify existing research on eHealth literacy domains and measurements and identify eHealth literacy scores and associated factors among hospital health care providers.MethodsThis systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, PEDro, AMED and Web of Science. Quantitative studies assessing eHealth literacy with original research, targeting hospital health care providers were included. Three eHealth literacy domains based on the eHealth literacy framework were defined a priori; (1) Individual eHealth literacy, (2) Interaction with the eHealth system, and (3) Access to the system. Pairs of authors independently assessed eligibility, appraised methodological quality and extracted data.ResultsFourteen publications, of which twelve publications were conducted in non-Western countries, were included. In total, 3,666 health care providers within eleven different professions were included, with nurses being the largest group. Nine of the included studies used the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) to measure eHealth literacy, representing the domain of individual eHealth literacy. A minority of the studies covered domains such as interaction with the eHealth system and access to the system. The mean eHEALS score in the studies ranged from 27.8 to 31.7 (8-40), indicating a higher eHealth literacy. One study reported desirable eHealth literacy based on the Digital Health Literacy Instrument. Another study reported a relatively high score on the Staff eHealth literacy questionnaire. eHealth literacy was associated with socio-demographic factors, experience of technology, health behaviour and work-related factors.ConclusionsHealth care providers have good individual eHealth literacy. However, more research is needed on the eHealth literacy domains dependent on interaction with the eHealth system and access to the system. Furthermore, most studies were conducted in Eastern and Central-Africa, and more research is thus needed in a Western context.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022363039).