Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25720295›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015

The performance of mHealth in cancer supportive care: a research agenda.

Greta Nasi, Maria Cucciniello, Claudia Guerrazzi

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Advances and future directions in the use of mobile health in supportive cancer care: proceedings of the 2019 MASCC Annual Meeting symposium.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Do mHealth applications improve clinical outcomes of patients with cancer? A critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. The role of the internet in the cancer experience: Synthesizing patient and provider views to forge new directions for care.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2019
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Greta NasiDepartment of Policy Analysis and Public Management, Bocconi University, Milano, Italy. greta.nasi@unibocconi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6587-4943
Bocconi University · ITUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the advent of smartphones, mHealth has risen to the attention of the health care system as something that could radically change the way health care has been viewed, managed, and delivered to date. This is particularly relevant for cancer, as one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and for cancer supportive care, since patients and caregivers have key roles in managing side effects. Given adequate knowledge, they are able to expect appropriate assessments and interventions. In this scenario, mHealth has great potential for linking patients, caregivers, and health care professionals; for enabling early detection and intervention; for lowering costs; and achieving better quality of life. Given its great potential, it is important to evaluate the performance of mHealth. This can be considered from several perspectives, of which organizational performance is particularly relevant, since mHealth may increase the productivity of health care providers and as a result even the productivity of health care systems.

objectiveThis paper aims to review studies on the evaluation of the performance of mHealth, with particular focus on cancer care and cancer supportive care processes, concentrating on its contribution to organizational performance, as well as identifying some indications for a further research agenda.

methodsWe carried out a review of literature, aimed at identifying studies related to the performance of mHealth in general or focusing on cancer care and cancer supportive care.

resultsOur analysis revealed that studies are almost always based on a single dimension of performance. Any evaluations of the performance of mHealth are based on very different methods and measures, with a prevailing focus on issues linked to efficiency. This fails to consider the real contribution that mHealth can offer for improving the performance of health care providers, health care systems, and the quality of life in general.

conclusionsFurther research should start by stating and explaining what is meant by the evaluation of mHealth's performance and then conduct more in-depth analysis in order to create shared frameworks to specifically identify the different dimensions of mHealth's performance.

Indexed as

TelemedicineDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansNeoplasmsQuality of Lifeclinical effectivenesseffectivenessefficiencymHealthorganizational performanceperformancequality of life

Identifiers

PMID25720295
PMCPMC4446659
OpenAlexW2063610498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.