4.6 Article

Do mHealth applications improve clinical outcomes of patients with cancer? A critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed literature

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 1469-1479

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-04945-4

Keywords

Cancer; mHealth; Smartphone; Internet; Health-related quality of life

Funding

  1. Tenovus [TIG2018-05] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer treatment experience distressing side effects, and these symptoms are often experienced outside the hospital setting. The impact of usage of cancer-related mobile health (mHealth) applications on patient-related outcomes requires investigation. Methods A critical appraisal of the literature was performed for the following question: 'In patients with cancer have mHealth applications been compared with usual care to examine impact on commonly used clinical outcomes'. Literature searches were undertaken with the help of a research librarian and included Medline, Cochrane Collaboration, clinical trial databases and grey searches. Results Seventeen studies including between 12 and 2352 patients were identified and reviewed. Smartphone applications or internet portals collected data on symptoms or patient activity. Several studies showed statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes when symptom monitoring using mobile health application was compared to usual care. Change in mobility was the only outcome that was related directly to toxicity. Only limited data on mortality, cancer-related morbidity including complications of care, health-economic outcomes or long-term outcomes were reported. Conclusions Studies on mHealth applications might improve aspects of symptom control in patients with cancer, but there is currently little evidence for impact on other outcomes. This requires future research in interventional studies.

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