ArticlePsycho-oncology2026
The Feasibility of a Co-Designed Online Healthy Living Intervention for Cancer Survivors: Valuable Content, But Limited Engagement.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHealthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) was an evidence-based, telephone-delivered lifestyle program for survivors. HLaC Online was co-designed with cancer survivors, healthcare professionals, and cancer support representatives to enhance sustainability and reach through a self-directed digital format, while incorporating both physical health and mental health content. This study examined HLaC Online's feasibility.
methodsEleven Australian post-treatment cancer survivors participated in a 12-week, single-arm pilot with mixed-methods evaluation. Feasibility indicators included uptake, usage, attrition, usability, satisfaction, and indicators of preliminary efficacy.
resultsOf 318 website visitors, 11 enrolled, with nearly half never logging in. Module usage was limited (M = 3.3 of 9 modules) and only 5 completed follow-up. Perceived usability of HLaC Online was varied (rated F- B+). Qualitative feedback highlighted the relevance of psychosocial modules, but engagement was hindered by technology barriers, cancer-related symptoms, and lack of guidance. Participants suggested human support for orientation, accountability, and motivation.
conclusionsWhile HLaC Online was valued for its co-designed mental health focus, feasibility was limited without guidance. Findings raise questions about which survivors can benefit from self-directed digital programs versus those requiring human support. Future work should explore referral pathways, scalable human support models, and tailoring by need.
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.