Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38315546›Full record

ReviewJMIR cancer2024

Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yingzi Zhang, Marie Flannery, Zhihong Zhang, Meghan Underhill-Blazey, Melanie Bobry, Natalie Leblanc, Darcey Rodriguez, Chen Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Posttreatment health interventions for adult cancer survivors and their families: an integrated review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yingzi Zhang *Magnet Program and Nursing Research Department, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3596-7126
Marie FlannerySchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2957-8482
Zhihong ZhangSchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9948-8936
Meghan Underhill-BlazeySchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1433-5915
Melanie BobrySchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9053-6022
Natalie LeblancSchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5338-1845
Darcey RodriguezEdward G Miner Library, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9034-6811
Chen Zhang *School of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8771-561X
University of Rochester Medical Center · USSouthwestern Medical Center

Funding

URCC NCORP Research BaseUG1CA189961 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI Michelle C Janelsins, KAREN M. MUSTIAN · 2014 to 2026
$67.7M
Understanding Treatment Tolerability in Older Patients with CancerU01CA233167 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI MOHILE, SUPRIYA G. · 2018 to 2023
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA233167NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with cancer and their families often experience significant distress and deterioration in their quality of life. Psychosocial interventions were used to address patients' and families' psychosocial needs. Digital technology is increasingly being used to deliver psychosocial interventions to patients with cancer and their families.

objectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to review the characteristics and effectiveness of digital health interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adult patients with cancer and their family members.

methodsDatabases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies that tested the effects of a digital intervention on psychosocial outcomes. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklists for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies were used to assess quality. Standardized mean differences (ie, Hedges g) were calculated to compare intervention effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was planned to examine the effect of delivery mode, duration of the intervention, type of control, and dosage on outcomes using a random-effects modeling approach.

resultsA total of 65 studies involving 10,361 patients (mean 159, SD 166; range 9-803 patients per study) and 1045 caregivers or partners (mean 16, SD 54; range 9-244 caregivers or partners per study) were included in the systematic review. Of these, 32 studies were included in a meta-analysis of the effects of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Overall, the RCT studies' general quality was mixed (applicable scores: mean 0.61, SD 0.12; range 0.38-0.91). Quasi-experimental studies were generally of moderate to high quality (applicable scores: mean 0.75, SD 0.08; range 0.63-0.89). Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral strategies were commonly used. More than half (n=38, 59%) did not identify a conceptual or theoretical framework. Most interventions were delivered through the internet (n=40, 62%). The median number of intervention sessions was 6 (range 1-56). The frequency of the intervention was highly variable, with self-paced (n=26, 40%) being the most common. The median duration was 8 weeks. The meta-analysis results showed that digital psychosocial interventions were effective in improving patients' quality of life with a small effect size (Hedges g=0.05, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.10; I

conclusionsThis study demonstrated the effectiveness of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in patients. Future research with a clear description of the methodology to enhance the ability to perform meta-analysis is needed. Moreover, this study provides preliminary evidence to support the integration of existing digital health psychosocial interventions in clinical practice.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020189698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189698.

Indexed as

anxietycancerdecision-makingdepressiondigital healthdistressfamilymental healthmortalitypsychosocial interventionquality of life

Identifiers

PMID38315546
PMCPMC10877499
OpenAlexW4391531116

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.