Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35969450›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

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

Désirée Schliemann, Min Min Tan, Wilfred Mok Kok Hoe, Devi Mohan, Nur Aishah Taib, Michael Donnelly, Tin Tin Su

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07628998 (Impact of SMS Notifications on the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT07628998 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Impact of SMS Notifications on the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

TypeinterventionalSponsorCorporacion Parc TauliRan2026 to 2026Enrolled10,084ConditionsColorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of CancerArmsText Messaging, Standard invitation and postal reminder letters
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Journal of health communication · 2026
    Article
  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

7 authors.

Désirée SchliemannCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8746-3002
Min Min TanSouth East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO), Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-9123-3445
Wilfred Mok Kok HoeSouth East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO), Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-2694-8871
Devi MohanGlobal Public Health, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-0898-2729
Nur Aishah TaibDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya Cancer Research Institute, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0001-8419-0478
Michael DonnellyCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8380-7413
Tin Tin SuCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0387-6406

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K023241/1Medical Research Council MR/S014349/1Medical Research Council MR/V005901/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer 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.

objectiveThe 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.

methodsThe 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.

resultsOur 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.

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

Indexed as

Cell PhoneNeoplasmsTelemedicineText MessagingEarly Detection of CancerHumansReview Literature as TopicTelephonecancercancer detectioncancer screeningdigital healthmHealthmobile healthmobile phoneoncologyreviewscoping reviewscoping review of reviews

Identifiers

PMID35969450
PMCPMC9425170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.