Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37700151›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2024

A systematic review of smartphone applications for cancer survivors.

Krisha Changrani, Sophie Chima, Arun Sharma, Gil-Gyu Han, Anushka Sharma, Mairead McNamara, Michael Jefford, Jon Emery, Paige Druce

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Health-related quality of life in esophageal cancer: a state-of-the-art review of patient-reported outcomes and an evidence and gap map.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors.

Krisha ChangraniThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia. krisha.changrani@rch.org.au.
Sophie ChimaCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Arun SharmaThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
Gil-Gyu HanThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
Anushka SharmaThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
Mairead McNamaraCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael JeffordAustralian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Paige DruceCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMobile phone applications are positioned to support, educate, and empower cancer survivors during post-treatment care. We undertook a review to assess the utility of such smartphone applications; determine whether their use correlates with improved quality of life and other self-reported outcomes; and understand the feasibility of integrating mobile apps into routine follow-up care.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Emcare, and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies evaluating apps that addressed at least one of the five Cancer Survivorship Care Quality Framework (CSCQF) domains published up until December 2021. Studies were narratively synthesized. Implementation barriers and facilitators were mapped against the Technology Acceptance Model.

resultsTwenty-three primary studies were included in this review. Only three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Studies generally found mobile apps to be feasible, acceptable, and well-placed to support survivorship care. Health promotion was the most predominant CSCQF domain with apps primarily aiming to support exercise and dietary changes. The domains of monitoring for cancer recurrence (n=5) and management of co-morbidities (n=1) were underrepresented. Barriers to app use included greater time since active treatment, lack of familiarity with technology, and content not tailored to the user.

conclusionsMobile apps are both feasible and acceptable in supporting the transition between active treatment and follow-up care. However, understanding the utility of such apps is limited by the low number of RCTs. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Mobile apps have the potential to be useful support tools for patients post-treatment. However, given the number of apps developed, targeted, and available to cancer survivors, practical guidance to help cancer survivors choose appropriate apps is needed.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsMobile ApplicationsNeoplasmsSmartphoneHumansQuality of LifeTelemedicineCancermHealthMobile appsSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID37700151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.