SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021
Effect of Digital Care Platforms on Quality of Care for Oncological Patients and Barriers and Facilitators for Their Implementation: Systematic Review.
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 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of digital interactive interventions on survivorship outcomes in prostate cancer: a systematic narrative review.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Patients' Experiences of Healthcare Professionals' Competence in Digital Counselling in Healthcare Settings-A Qualitative Systematic Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Pooled it
- The Effect of Nutritional Mobile Apps on Populations With Cancer: Systematic Review.JMIR cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Digital oncology interventions and equity: a scoping review of design strategies to address cancer disparities.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- A paradox in the quality of care in centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Exploring the Experiences of Cancer Patients Following an Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia With Professional Phone Guidance: The Sleep-4-All-2.0 Study.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Opportunities and challenges in implementing digital patient-centred cancer care in Europe-a qualitative study of several ESMO Designated Centres.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- First the relationship, then the technology: Healthcare professionals' perceptions on how digital health solutions impact the interaction with patients.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- AI chatbots for health information seeking among Chinese patients with precancerous ENT lesions: a descriptive qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Scan, Screen, Support-A Digital Pathway for Assessing Supportive Care Needs in Oncology: Implementation Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Balancing ideals and realities: health care professionals' perspectives of and attitudes toward digital patient-centered cancer care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Patterns and Consequences of Care Fragmentation in Post-Surgical Management of Upper Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancers.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Enhancing nursing care through technology and standardized nursing language: The TEC-MED multilingual platform.International journal of nursing knowledge · 2025Article
- How to Improve Pancreatic Cancer Network Care Using a Human-Centered Design Sprint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Review
- Digital health: current applications, challenges, and future directions for enhancing healthcare quality and safety.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- User Experience and Extended Technology Acceptance Model in Commercial Health Care App Usage Among Patients With Cancer: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Fear of Cancer Recurrence and Fear of Cancer Progression, Digital Resource Engagement and Health Literacy: A Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Implementing a Clinical Pathway for Needs Assessment and Supportive Care Interventions.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOncological health care services are challenged by the increasing number of cancer survivors, long-term follow-up care, and fragmentation of care. Digital care platforms are potential tools to deliver affordable, patient-centered oncological care. Previous reviews evaluated only one feature of a digital care platform or did not evaluate the effect on enhancement of information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, or patient- and health care provider-reported experiences. Additionally, they have not focused on the barriers and facilitators for implementation of a digital care platform in oncological care.
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to collect the best available evidence of the effect of a digital care platform on quality of care parameters such as enhancement of available information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, and patient- and health care provider-reported experiences. Additionally, barriers and facilitators for implementation of digital care platforms were analyzed.
methodsThe PubMed (Medline), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the period from January 2000 to May 2020 for studies assessing the effect of a digital care platform on the predefined outcome parameters in oncological patients and studies describing barriers and facilitators for implementation. Synthesis of the results was performed qualitatively. Barriers and facilitators were categorized according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal of the studies.
resultsSeventeen studies were included for final analysis, comprising 8 clinical studies on the effectiveness of the digital care platform and 13 studies describing barriers and facilitators. Usage of a digital care platform appeared to enhance the availability of information and self-efficacy. There were no data available on the effect of a digital care platform on the continuity of care. However, based on focus group interviews, digital care platforms could potentially improve continuity of care by optimizing the exchange of patient information across institutes. Patient-reported experiences such as satisfaction with the platform were considerably positive. Most barriers for implementation were identified at the professional level, such as the concern for increased workload and unattended release of medical information to patients. Most facilitators were found at the patient and innovation levels, such as improved patient-doctor communication and patient empowerment. There were few barriers and facilitators mentioned at the economic and political levels.
conclusionsThe use of digital care platforms is associated with better quality of care through enhancement of availability of information and increased self-efficacy for oncological patients. The numerous facilitators identified at the patient level illustrate that patients are positive toward a digital care platform. However, despite these favorable results, robust evidence concerning the effectiveness of digital care platforms, especially from high-quality studies, is still lacking. Future studies should therefore aim to further investigate the effectiveness of digital care platforms, and the barriers and facilitators to their implementation at the economic and political levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.