SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Digital supportive care in prostate cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo map and synthesise the existing evidence on people's perspectives and requirements for patient-facing digital health technologies for use in prostate cancer care delivery. Understanding the preferences of people with prostate cancer and understanding the barriers and facilitators to maximising engagement with digital supportive care healthcare landscape.
methodsFour electronic databases were searched to identify suitable studies. All identified citations were imported into Covidence systematic review software for the removal of duplicate records and the study selection process by two reviewers. Methodological quality was appraised using the MMAT, and findings were synthesised narratively using the Human, Organisation, and Technology-fit (HOT-fit) evaluation framework.
resultsEighty-eight studies were included and represented a total of 29,256 participants affected by prostate cancer. Preferences for digital supportive care emerged across four interconnected domains: (1) mode of delivery, (2) type of content desired, (3) factors enabling engagement, and (4) barriers limiting use. Overall, there was willingness to engage with digital models due to their convenience, flexibility, and immediacy of access. Self-management was enhanced via decision aids, symptom management tools, informational resources, and evidence-based tools to support aspects of psychosocial functioning and emotional wellbeing, physical activity, and sexual health. Several barriers to the implementation and uptake of digital supportive care interventions were identified primarily relating to technology access, device compatibility, digital literacy, and emotional readiness.
conclusionsDigital models in prostate cancer care were acceptable and valued for their convenience, flexibility, immediacy of access, tailored content, clinician support, and interactive features, and facilitated self-management through decision-making, symptom management, and informational and psychosocial support. Interpreted through the HOT-fit framework, their value depended on the fit between the technology, its users, and the care setting rather than on technological sophistication alone. Limited attention has been given to digital sexual wellbeing support, and further research is needed on engagement among people with low digital literacy, non-English speakers, and lower-income populations, and on the long-term sustainability of digital models.
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.