SynthesisBMJ open2022
Rapid systematic review on developing web-based interventions to support people affected by cancer.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically identify and explore the existing evidence to inform the development of web-based interventions to support people affected by cancer (PABC).
designA rapid review design was employed in accordance with the guidance produced by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. A rapid review was chosen due to the need for a timely evidence synthesis to underpin the subsequent development of a digital resource (Shared Lives: Cancer) as part of an ongoing funded project. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: Keyword searches were performed in MEDLINE to identify peer-reviewed literature that reported primary data on the development of web-based interventions designed to support PABC. The review included peer-reviewed studies published in English with no limits set on publication date or geography. Key outcomes included any primary data that reported on the design, usability, feasibility, acceptability, functionality and user experience of web-based resource development.
resultsTen studies were identified that met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. All studies employed an iterative, co-design approach underpinned by either quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods. The findings were grouped into the following overarching themes: (1) exploring current evidence, guidelines and theory, (2) identifying user needs and preferences and (3) evaluating the usability, feasibility and acceptability of resources. Resources should be informed by the experiences of a wide range of end-users taking into consideration current guidelines and theory early in the design process. Resource design and content should be developed around the user's needs and preferences and evaluated through usability, feasibility or acceptability testing using quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods.
conclusionThe findings of this rapid review provide novel methodological insights into the approaches used to design web-based interventions to support PABC. Our findings have the potential to inform and guide researchers when considering the development of future digital health resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ucvsz).
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.