Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37115587›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2023

Features of Cancer mHealth Apps and Evidence for Patient Preferences: Scoping Literature Review.

Shannon Vaffis, Soluna Whaley, David Rhys Axon, Elizabeth Hall-Lipsy, Ana Hincapie, Marion Slack, Terri Warholak

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Building Patient-Facing Technology: A REDCap-Based Approach.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shannon VaffisCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-9207
Soluna WhaleyCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1064-5788
David Rhys AxonCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9903-5996
Elizabeth Hall-LipsyCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6500-3339
Ana HincapieJames L Winkle College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6142-1744
Marion SlackCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6537-3092
Terri WarholakCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5956-7181
University of Arizona · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer is increasingly being treated as a chronic disease rather than an acute one-time illness. Additionally, oral anticancer therapies, as opposed to intravenous chemotherapy, are now available for an increasing number of cancer indications. Mobile health (mHealth) apps for use on mobile devices (eg, smartphones or tablets) are designed to help patients with medication adherence, symptom tracking, and disease management. Several previous literature reviews have been conducted regarding mHealth apps for cancer. However, these studies did not address patient preferences for the features of cancer mHealth apps.

objectiveThe primary aim was to review the scientific literature that describes the features and functions of mHealth apps designed for cancer self-management.

methodsAs the purpose of this review was to explore the depth and breadth of research on mHealth app features for cancer self-management, a scoping review methodology was adopted. Four databases were used for this review: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Citation and reference searches were conducted for manuscripts meeting the inclusion criteria. A gray literature search was also conducted. Data extracted from manuscripts included author, title, publication date, study type, sampling type, cancer type, treatment, age of participants, features, availability (free or subscription), design input, and patient preferences. Finally, the features listed for each app were compared, highlighting similarities across platforms as well as features unique to each app.

resultsAfter the removal of duplicates, 522 manuscripts remained for the title and abstract review, with 51 undergoing full-text review. A total of 7 manuscripts (referred to as studies hereafter) were included in the final scoping review. App features described in each study varied from 2 to 11, with a median of 4 features per app. The most reported feature was a symptom or side effect tracker, which was reported in 6 studies. Two apps specified the inclusion of patients and health care providers during the design, while 1 app noted that IT and communications experts provided design input. The utility of the apps for end users was measured in several ways, including acceptability (measuring the end users' experience), usability (assessing the functionality and performance by observing real users completing tasks), or qualitative data (reports from end users collected from interviews or focus groups).

conclusionsThis review explored the literature on cancer mHealth apps. Popular features within these mHealth apps include symptom trackers, cancer education, and medication trackers. However, these apps and features are often developed with little input from patients. Additionally, there is little information regarding patient preferences for the features of existing apps. While the number of cancer-related apps available for download continues to increase, further exploration of patient preferences for app features could result in apps that better meet patient disease self-management needs.

Indexed as

cancerchronic diseasedigital healthdisease self-managementeHealthfeaturehealth appmHealthmobile healthoncologyscoping reviewself-managementsmartphonetablet

Identifiers

PMID37115587
PMCPMC10182455
OpenAlexW4367312597

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.