4.6 Review

eHealth for improving quality of life in breast cancer patients: A systematic review

Journal

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
Volume 74, Issue -, Pages 1-14

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.01.003

Keywords

Breast cancer; eHealth; Body image; Quality of life; Systematic review; Health technologies

Categories

Funding

  1. European Union [643529]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Breast cancer patients (and survivors) use to deal with important challenges daily, such as coping with stress and depression, and adopting healthy lifestyles in order to improve treatment effectiveness; moreover, some experiential issues are quite specific of this disease, such as sexuality and fertility disfunctions after hormonal therapy, and distortions in body image after breast surgery. Recent literature highlighted the utility of eHealth or the use of new technologies to promote health management and quality of life in chronic diseases generally. The present contribution aims at (1) exploring usage and effectiveness of eHealth resources to improve breast cancer patients/survivors' quality of life, and (2) describing whether existing eHealth interventions addressed specific characteristics of breast cancer, or employed a generic approach only. A systematic literature search according to PRISMA guidelines was performed. Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria and were included. Discussion highlights a majority of encouraging results about eHealth in breast cancer patients' health management, especially in those interventions featuring eHealth tools for improving patients' abilities (e.g., coping) and complex eHealth systems with multiple resources. However, generic use of eHealth is still predominant over disease-focused solutions. Guidelines for future eHealth research and development are listed in order to promote technology design centered on the lived experience of specific illness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available