OBJECTIVE: Too few cancer patients and survivors receive evidence-based interventions for mental health symptoms. This review examines the potential for Internet interventions to help fill treatment gaps in psychosocial oncology and presents evidence regarding the likely utility of Internet interventions for cancer patients. METHODS: The authors examined available literature regarding Internet interventions tailored to cancer patients' mental health needs and reviewed elements of Internet interventions for mental health relevant to advancing psycho-oncology Internet intervention research. RESULTS: Few rigorous studies focusing on mental health of cancer patients have been conducted online. A growing body of evidence supports the efficacy, accessibility, and acceptability of mental health Internet interventions for a variety of general and medical patient populations. The authors present recommendations and guidelines to assist researchers in developing, testing, and disseminating Internet interventions for cancer patients and survivors, to manage and improve their mental health. Issues unique to Internet interventions-including intervention structure, customization, provider interaction, and privacy and confidentiality issues-are discussed. These guidelines are offered as a step toward establishing a set of "best practices" for Internet interventions in psycho-oncology and to generate further discussion regarding the goals of such interventions and their place in cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: Internet interventions have the potential to fill an important gap in quality cancer care by augmenting limited available mental health services. These interventions should be developed in a manner consistent with best practices and must be empirically tested and validated.
OBJECTIVE: Too few cancerpatients and survivors receive evidence-based interventions for mental health symptoms. This review examines the potential for Internet interventions to help fill treatment gaps in psychosocial oncology and presents evidence regarding the likely utility of Internet interventions for cancerpatients. METHODS: The authors examined available literature regarding Internet interventions tailored to cancerpatients' mental health needs and reviewed elements of Internet interventions for mental health relevant to advancing psycho-oncology Internet intervention research. RESULTS: Few rigorous studies focusing on mental health of cancerpatients have been conducted online. A growing body of evidence supports the efficacy, accessibility, and acceptability of mental health Internet interventions for a variety of general and medical patient populations. The authors present recommendations and guidelines to assist researchers in developing, testing, and disseminating Internet interventions for cancerpatients and survivors, to manage and improve their mental health. Issues unique to Internet interventions-including intervention structure, customization, provider interaction, and privacy and confidentiality issues-are discussed. These guidelines are offered as a step toward establishing a set of "best practices" for Internet interventions in psycho-oncology and to generate further discussion regarding the goals of such interventions and their place in cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: Internet interventions have the potential to fill an important gap in quality cancer care by augmenting limited available mental health services. These interventions should be developed in a manner consistent with best practices and must be empirically tested and validated.
Authors: Ricardo F Muñoz; Alinne Z Barrera; Kevin Delucchi; Carlos Penilla; Leandro D Torres; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Kelly P McCarrier; James D Ralston; Irl B Hirsch; Ginny Lewis; Diane P Martin; Frederick J Zimmerman; Harold I Goldberg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Wen-ying Sylvia Chou; Yvonne M Hunt; Ellen Burke Beckjord; Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Alinne Z Barrera; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Kevin L Delucchi; Ricardo F Muñoz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-02-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna C Muriel; Vivian S Hwang; Alice Kornblith; Joseph Greer; Donna B Greenberg; Jennifer Temel; Lidia Schapira; William Pirl Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Francisco Iacobelli; Rachel F Adler; Diana Buitrago; Joanna Buscemi; Marya E Corden; Alejandra Perez-Tamayo; Frank J Penedo; Melinda Rodriguez; Betina R Yanez Journal: Design Health (Abingdon) Date: 2018-04-02
Authors: Suzanne C Danhauer; Elizabeth L Addington; Lorenzo Cohen; Stephanie J Sohl; Marieke Van Puymbroeck; Natalia K Albinati; S Nicole Culos-Reed Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Femke Jansen; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; J Annemieke Braakman; Paulina M van Keizerswaard; Birgit I Witte; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Heidi S Donovan; Sandra E Ward; Susan M Sereika; Judith E Knapp; Paula R Sherwood; Catherine M Bender; Robert P Edwards; Margaret Fields; Renee Ingel Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-09-07 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Patrizia Gnagnarella; Alessandro Maria Misotti; Luigi Santoro; Demosthenes Akoumianakis; Laura Del Campo; Francesco De Lorenzo; Claudio Lombardo; Giannis Milolidakis; Richard Sullivan; John Gordon McVie Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: N Fridriksdottir; S Gunnarsdottir; S Zoëga; B Ingadottir; E J G Hafsteinsdottir Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Claire E Wakefield; Ursula M Sansom-Daly; Brittany C McGill; Sarah J Ellis; Emma L Doolan; Eden G Robertson; Sanaa Mathur; Richard J Cohn Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Susan Magasi; Jennifer Banas; Bruriah Horowitz; Judy Panko Reis; Kimberly The; Tom Wilson; David Victoson Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2019