Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38055087›Full record

ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023

eHealth interventions to support colorectal cancer patients' self-management after discharge from surgery-an integrative literature review.

Anne Lunde Marie Husebø, Jon Arne Søreide, Hartwig Kørner, Marianne Storm, Hege Bjøkne Wathne, Alison Richardson, Ingvild Margreta Morken, Kristin Hjorthaug Urstad, Oda Karin Nordfonn, Bjørg Karlsen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Anne Lunde Marie HusebøDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway. anne.m.husebo@uis.no.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7476-851X
Jon Arne SøreideDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7572-1089
Hartwig KørnerDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0498-2331
Marianne StormDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1139-5947
Hege Bjøkne WathneDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5041-0356
Alison RichardsonNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3127-5755
Ingvild Margreta MorkenResearch Group of Nursing and Health Sciences, Research Department, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8022-7373
Kristin Hjorthaug UrstadDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8830-4564
Oda Karin NordfonnDepartment of Health and Caring Science, Western Norway University of Applied Science, Stord, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7613-2689
Bjørg KarlsenDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7606-2927

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) creates elevated self-management demands and unmet support needs post-discharge. Follow-up care through eHealth post-primary surgery may be an effective means of supporting patients' needs. This integrative review describes the evidence regarding eHealth interventions post-hospital discharge focusing on delivery mode, user-interface and content, patient intervention adherence, impact on patient-reported outcomes and experiences of eHealth.

methodsA university librarian performed literature searches in 2021 using four databases. After screening 1149 records, the authors read 30 full-text papers and included and extracted data from 26 papers. Two authors analysed the extracted data using the 'framework synthesis approach'.

resultsThe 26 papers were published between 2012 and 2022. The eHealth interventions were mainly delivered by telephone with the assistance of healthcare professionals, combined with text messages or video conferencing. The user interfaces included websites, applications and physical activity (PA) trackers. The interventions comprised the monitoring of symptoms or health behaviours, patient information, education and counselling. Evidence showed a better psychological state and improved PA. Patients reported high satisfaction with eHealth. However, patient adherence was inadequately reported.

conclusionseHealth interventions may positively impact CRC patients' anxiety and PA regardless of the user interface. Patients prefer technology combined with a human element.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsSelf-ManagementAftercareAnxietyHumansPatient DischargeColorectal cancereHealth interventionPost-hospital discharge follow-upPost-primary surgeryQuality of lifeSelf-management support

Identifiers

PMID38055087
PMCPMC10700211

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.