Dataset Information

MHealth Interventions to Improve Cancer Screening and Early Detection: Scoping Review of Reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cancer screening provision in resource-constrained settings tends to be opportunistic, and uptake tends to be low, leading to delayed presentation and treatment and poor survival.

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify, review, map, and summarize findings from different types of literature reviews on the use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies to improve the uptake of cancer screening.

Methods

The review methodology was guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Ovid MEDLINE, PyscINFO, and Embase were searched from inception to May 2021. The eligible criteria included reviews that focused on studies of interventions that used mobile phone devices to promote and deliver cancer screening and described the effectiveness or implementation of mHealth intervention outcomes. Key data fields such as study aims, types of cancer, mHealth formats, and outcomes were extracted, and the data were analyzed to address the objective of the review.

Results

Our initial search identified 1981 titles, of which 12 (0.61%) reviews met the inclusion criteria (systematic reviews: n=6, 50%; scoping reviews: n=4, 33%; rapid reviews: n=1, 8%; narrative reviews: n=1, 8%). Most (57/67, 85%) of the interventions targeted breast and cervical cancer awareness and screening uptake. The most commonly used mHealth technologies for increasing cancer screening uptake were SMS text messages and telephone calls. Overall, mHealth interventions increased knowledge about screening and had high acceptance among participants. The likelihood of achieving improved uptake-related outcomes increased when interventions used >1 mode of communication (telephone reminders, physical invitation letters, and educational pamphlets) together with mHealth.

Conclusions

mHealth interventions increase cancer screening uptake, although multiple modes used in combination seem to be more effective.

SUBMITTER: Schliemann D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9425170 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

mHealth Interventions to Improve Cancer Screening and Early Detection: Scoping Review of Reviews.

Schliemann Désirée D Tan Min Min MM Hoe Wilfred Mok Kok WMK Mohan Devi D Taib Nur Aishah NA Donnelly Michael M Su Tin Tin TT

Journal of medical Internet research 20220815 8

<h4>Background</h4>Cancer screening provision in resource-constrained settings tends to be opportunistic, and uptake tends to be low, leading to delayed presentation and treatment and poor survival.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to identify, review, map, and summarize findings from different types of literature reviews on the use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies to improve the uptake of cancer screening.<h4>Methods</h4>The review methodology was guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Pref ...[more]

PMID: 35969450

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals.DesignA scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021.Eligibility and criteriaStudy participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis.Data extraction and synthesisWe summarised findings graphically and descriptively.ResultsFrom 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-harm is a growing issue with increasing prevalence rates; however, individuals who self-harm do not often receive treatment. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions are a possible solution to some of the barriers that individuals face when seeking support, and they have also been found to be effective in improving mental health. Thus far, reviews of mHealth interventions for self-harm have been limited by study type. Therefore, we determined that a broader scoping review will provide a more exhaustive understanding of mHealth interventions for self-harm.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to identify mHealth interventions for self-harm within the literature, understand the types and features of interventions that have been developed and evaluated, highlight research findings around mHealth interventions for self-harm, and determine what outcomes are typically used to assess the efficacy of interventions.MethodsA search was conducted using Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they described an mHealth intervention designed to have a direct (ie, if the intervention was designed for self-harm or for people who self-harm) or indirect (ie, if self-harm was measured as an outcome) treatment effect and if the paper was available in English. There were no exclusion criteria based on the study design.ResultsA total of 36 papers were included in the review, and most of them were randomized controlled trials published within the last 4 years. The interventions were mostly smartphone apps and calling or texting services, with 62% (21/34) having underlying therapeutic models to inform the intervention content. They were generally shown to be promising and appealing, but only 5 were widely available for use. Outcomes focused on a reduction of self-harm and suicidality, mood, and the users' experiences of the intervention. Samples were typically nondiverse, and there was limited variety in the study designs and in the measurements of self-harm recovery.ConclusionsPromising and appealing mHealth interventions have been developed but are not widely available. Research could benefit from greater diversity as well as a broader and more nuanced understanding of recovery from self-harm.

Project description:BackgroundMobile phone usage has been rapidly increasing worldwide. mHealth could efficiently deliver high-quality health care, but the evidence supporting its current effectiveness is still mixed.ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review of systematic reviews to assess the impact or effectiveness of mobile health (mHealth) interventions in different health conditions and in the processes of health care service delivery.MethodsWe used a common search strategy of five major scientific databases, restricting the search by publication date, language, and parameters in methodology and content. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist.ResultsThe searches resulted in a total of 10,689 articles. Of these, 23 systematic reviews (371 studies; more than 79,665 patients) were included. Seventeen reviews included studies performed in low- and middle-income countries. The studies used diverse mHealth interventions, most frequently text messaging (short message service, SMS) applied to different purposes (reminder, alert, education, motivation, prevention). Ten reviews were rated as low quality (AMSTAR score 0-4), seven were rated as moderate quality (AMSTAR score 5-8), and six were categorized as high quality (AMSTAR score 9-11). A beneficial impact of mHealth was observed in chronic disease management, showing improvement in symptoms and peak flow variability in asthma patients, reducing hospitalizations and improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second; improving chronic pulmonary diseases symptoms; improving heart failure symptoms, reducing deaths and hospitalization; improving glycemic control in diabetes patients; improving blood pressure in hypertensive patients; and reducing weight in overweight and obese patients. Studies also showed a positive impact of SMS reminders in improving attendance rates, with a similar impact to phone call reminders at reduced cost, and improved adherence to tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus therapy in some scenarios, with evidence of decrease of viral load.ConclusionsAlthough mHealth is growing in popularity, the evidence for efficacy is still limited. In general, the methodological quality of the studies included in the systematic reviews is low. For some fields, its impact is not evident, the results are mixed, or no long-term studies exist. Exceptions include the moderate quality evidence of improvement in asthma patients, attendance rates, and increased smoking abstinence rates. Most studies were performed in high-income countries, implying that mHealth is still at an early stage of development in low-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundPain is prevalent and poorly managed in older adults. Although pain self-management strategies are helpful, adoption and access are limited; thus, technology provides an opportunity for intervention delivery. Mobile health (mHealth) is feasible to use in older adults; however, we have yet to understand the effect of mHealth pain self-management interventions on pain outcomes in older adults.ObjectiveThe purpose of this scoping review is to examine the characteristics of mHealth interventions and their efficacy on pain outcomes in older adults with musculoskeletal pain.MethodsWith the assistance of a medical librarian, keywords and subject headings were generated, including but not limited to mobile health application, mHealth, digital, pain, pain management, and older. A search was conducted for papers in journal databases, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore, between 2000 and 2022. Papers were screened according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and reference lists were reviewed for additional paper inclusion. Three authors appraised the methodology of papers independently, then collaboratively to synthesize the evidence.ResultsSix publications were included in the scoping review. The design and methodology ranged widely from pilot studies to a comparative effectiveness trial. Older participants in the studies reported a variety of musculoskeletal conditions. Delivery of the mHealth pain self-management interventions incorporated mobile devices, such as a smartphone or tablet. Most mHealth-delivered interventions were multicomponent and incorporated elements of in-person and telephone access to an interventionist. The findings suggested mHealth interventions may reduce pain intensity; however, pain interference and other pain-related conditions did not have a statistically significant reduction.ConclusionsResearch that has explored mHealth for pain self-management is beginning to move beyond feasibility. The few experimental studies conducted in older adults are heterogeneous, and the interventions are mostly multicomponent. It is premature to conclude the interventions' significant effect on pain or pain-related symptoms. As technology continues to integrate into health care, more experimental research is warranted to examine the efficacy of mHealth interventions on a variety of pain outcomes in older adults.

Project description:BackgroundMobile devices such as smartphones and tablets have surged in popularity in recent years, generating numerous possibilities for their use in health care as mobile health (mHealth) tools. One advantage of mHealth is that it can be provided asynchronously, signifying that health care providers and patients are not communicating in real time. The integration of asynchronous mHealth into daily clinical practice might therefore help to make health care more efficient for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The benefits have been reviewed in various medical conditions, such as diabetes and asthma, with promising results. However, to date, it is unclear what evidence exists for the use of asynchronous mHealth in the field of RA.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to map the different asynchronous mHealth interventions tested in clinical trials in patients with RA and to summarize the effects of the interventions.MethodsA systematic search of Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, and PsycINFO was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were initially screened and later assessed by two independent researchers. Disagreements on inclusion or exclusion of studies were resolved by discussion.ResultsThe literature search yielded 1752 abstracts. After deduplication and screening, 10 controlled intervention studies were included. All studies were assessed to be at risk for bias in at least one domain of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. In the 10 selected studies, 4 different types of mHealth interventions were used: SMS reminders (to increase medication adherence or physical activity; n=3), web apps (for disease monitoring and/or to provide medical information; n=5), smartphone apps (for disease monitoring; n=1), and pedometers (to increase and track steps; n=1). Measured outcomes varied widely between studies; improvements were seen in terms of medication compliance (SMS reminders), reaching rapid remission (web app), various domains of physical activity (pedometer, SMS reminders, and web apps), patient-physician interaction (web apps), and self-efficacy (smartphone app).ConclusionsSMS reminders, web apps, smartphone apps, and pedometers have been evaluated in intervention studies in patients with RA. These interventions have been used to monitor patients or to support them in their health behavior. The use of asynchronous mHealth led to desirable outcomes in nearly all studies. However, since all studies were at risk of bias and methods used were very heterogeneous, high-quality research is warranted to corroborate these promising results.

Project description:BackgroundMicrorandomized trials (MRTs) have emerged as the gold standard for the development and evaluation of multicomponent, adaptive mobile health (mHealth) interventions. However, not much is known about the state of participant engagement measurement in MRTs of mHealth interventions.ObjectiveIn this scoping review, we aimed to quantify the proportion of existing or planned MRTs of mHealth interventions to date that have assessed (or have planned to assess) engagement. In addition, for the trials that have explicitly assessed (or have planned to assess) engagement, we aimed to investigate how engagement has been operationalized and to identify the factors that have been studied as determinants of engagement in MRTs of mHealth interventions.MethodsWe conducted a broad search for MRTs of mHealth interventions in 5 databases and manually searched preprint servers and trial registries. Study characteristics of each included evidence source were extracted. We coded and categorized these data to identify how engagement has been operationalized and which determinants, moderators, and covariates have been assessed in existing MRTs.ResultsOur database and manual search yielded 22 eligible evidence sources. Most of these studies (14/22, 64%) were designed to evaluate the effects of intervention components. The median sample size of the included MRTs was 110.5. At least 1 explicit measure of engagement was included in 91% (20/22) of the included MRTs. We found that objective measures such as system usage data (16/20, 80%) and sensor data (7/20, 35%) are the most common methods of measuring engagement. All studies included at least 1 measure of the physical facet of engagement, but the affective and cognitive facets of engagement have largely been neglected (only measured by 1 study each). Most studies measured engagement with the mHealth intervention (Little e) and not with the health behavior of interest (Big E). Only 6 (30%) of the 20 studies that measured engagement assessed the determinants of engagement in MRTs of mHealth interventions; notification-related variables were the most common determinants of engagement assessed (4/6, 67% studies). Of the 6 studies, 3 (50%) examined the moderators of participant engagement-2 studies investigated time-related moderators exclusively, and 1 study planned to investigate a comprehensive set of physiological and psychosocial moderators in addition to time-related moderators.ConclusionsAlthough the measurement of participant engagement in MRTs of mHealth interventions is prevalent, there is a need for future trials to diversify the measurement of engagement. There is also a need for researchers to address the lack of attention to how engagement is determined and moderated. We hope that by mapping the state of engagement measurement in existing MRTs of mHealth interventions, this review will encourage researchers to pay more attention to these issues when planning for engagement measurement in future trials.

Project description:IntroductionReviews of commercial and publicly available smartphone (mobile) health applications (mHealth app reviews) are being undertaken and published. However, there is variation in the conduct and reporting of mHealth app reviews, with no existing reporting guidelines. Building on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we aim to develop the Consensus for APP Review Reporting Items (CAPPRRI) guidance, to support the conduct and reporting of mHealth app reviews. This scoping review of published mHealth app reviews will explore their alignment, deviation, and modification to the PRISMA 2020 items for systematic reviews and identify a list of possible items to include in CAPPRRI.Method and analysisWe are following the Joanna Briggs Institute approach and Arksey and O'Malley's five-step process. Patient and public contributors, mHealth app review, digital health research and evidence synthesis experts, healthcare professionals and a specialist librarian gave feedback on the methods. We will search SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus, AMED, EMBASE, Medline, APA PsycINFO and the ACM Digital Library for articles reporting mHealth app reviews and use a two-step screening process to identify eligible articles. Information on whether the authors have reported, or how they have modified the PRISMA 2020 items in their reporting, will be extracted. Data extraction will also include the article characteristics, protocol and registration information, review question frameworks used, information about the search and screening process, how apps have been evaluated and evidence of stakeholder engagement. This will be analysed using a content synthesis approach and presented using descriptive statistics and summaries. This protocol is registered on OSF (https://osf.io/5ahjx).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications (shared on our project website and on the EQUATOR Network website where the CAPPRRI guidance has been registered as under development), conference presentations and blog and social media posts in lay language.