Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30610736›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2019

A systematic review of the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of online supportive care interventions targeting men with a history of prostate cancer.

Cynthia C Forbes, Amy Finlay, Megan McIntosh, Shihab Siddiquee, Camille E Short

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of online supportive care for individuals living with and beyond lung cancer: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. The role of routine follow-up visits of prostate cancer survivors in addressing supportive care and information needs: a qualitative observational study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Cynthia C ForbesHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Allam Medical Building 3rd Floor, Cottingham Road, Kingston-Upon-Hull, East Yorkshire, HU6 7RX, UK. cindy.forbes@hyms.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3259-1832
Amy FinlaySchool of Medicine, Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Megan McIntoshSchool of Medicine, Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Shihab SiddiqueeCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Camille E ShortSchool of Medicine, Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of online supportive care interventions targeting prostate cancer survivors (PCS).

methodsStudies were identified through structured searches of PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases, and bibliographic review. Inclusion criteria were (1) examined feasibility, acceptability, or efficacy of an online intervention designed to improve supportive care outcomes for PCS; (2) presented outcome data collected from PCS separately (if mixed cancer); and (3) evaluated efficacy outcomes using randomized controlled trial (RCT) design.

resultsSixteen studies met inclusion criteria; ten were classified as RCTs. Overall, 2446 men (average age 64 years) were included. Studies reported on the following outcomes: feasibility and acceptability of an online intervention (e.g., patient support, online medical record/follow-ups, or decision aids); reducing decisional conflict/distress; improving cancer-related distress and health-related quality of life; and satisfaction with cancer care.

conclusionWe found good preliminary evidence for online supportive care among PCS, but little high level evidence. Generally, the samples were small and unrepresentative. Further, inadequate acceptability measures made it difficult to determine actual PCS acceptability and satisfaction, and lack of control groups precluded strong conclusions regarding efficacy. Translation also appears minimal; few interventions are still publicly available. Larger trials with appropriate control groups and greater emphasis on translation of effective interventions is recommended. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Prostate cancer survivors have a variety of unmet supportive care needs. Using online delivery to improve the reach of high-quality supportive care programs could have a positive impact on health-related quality of life among PCS.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsInternet-Based InterventionPalliative CarePatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedDecision Support TechniquesFeasibility StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeCancer careCancer servicesDigital healthMen’s healthWell-being

Identifiers

PMID30610736
PMCPMC6394465

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.