Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34328423›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021

Social Media and mHealth Technology for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Arlinda Ruco, Fahima Dossa, Jill Tinmouth, Diego Llovet, Jenna Jacobson, Teruko Kishibe, Nancy Baxter

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Arlinda RucoInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0221-5836
Fahima DossaDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4670-7445
Jill TinmouthInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0264-2176
Diego LlovetInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6911-5143
Jenna JacobsonInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1371-1077
Teruko KishibeLibrary Services, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8797-7137
Nancy BaxterInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4793-4620

Funding

CIHR FDN-148470CIHR GSO-157853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal.

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening.

methodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model.

resultsWe screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types.

conclusionsScreening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSocial MediaTelemedicineAdultBiomedical TechnologyEarly Detection of CancerHumansTechnologycancer screeningdigital healthmass screeningmHealthmobile phonesocial media

Identifiers

PMID34328423
PMCPMC8367160

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.