Filipa Ventura1, Joakim Ohlén, Ingalill Koinberg. 1. Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden. filipa.ventura@gu.se
Abstract
PURPOSE: This integrative review aims to gather more knowledge of the design of supportive e-health interventions for patients diagnosed with cancer and subsequently analyze and synthesize that knowledge in a potential explanatory model for those interventions. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for abstracts dating from 2000 through to June 2012. Eligible articles concerned education or support for adult cancer patients, and were provided either on the Internet or using CD-ROM or DVD. RESULTS: Twenty-eight quantitative studies constituted the final sample, revealing that supportive e-health programs in the field of cancer are being used and are helpful to individuals despite their age, gender, literacy level and disease-stage. Each e-health program usually constitutes a single service with a variety of multimedia features, which leads to different designs yet with common outcomes. Some of these outcomes are theoretically explained, although a structure that links all aspects of the intervention is rarely found. Moreover, different designs have also been adopted for testing the interventions' effectiveness. CONCLUSION: E-health interventions that allow supportive needs to be satisfied are leading to positive effects for individuals with different preferences and priorities. Even though several communalities could be found across interventions, methodological aspects of design, implementation and evaluation still vary, leading to some inconsistency. Models and applied theories are needed to clarify such issues, thus enhancing the credibility and applicability of supportive e-health programs across target populations.
PURPOSE: This integrative review aims to gather more knowledge of the design of supportive e-health interventions for patients diagnosed with cancer and subsequently analyze and synthesize that knowledge in a potential explanatory model for those interventions. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for abstracts dating from 2000 through to June 2012. Eligible articles concerned education or support for adult cancerpatients, and were provided either on the Internet or using CD-ROM or DVD. RESULTS: Twenty-eight quantitative studies constituted the final sample, revealing that supportive e-health programs in the field of cancer are being used and are helpful to individuals despite their age, gender, literacy level and disease-stage. Each e-health program usually constitutes a single service with a variety of multimedia features, which leads to different designs yet with common outcomes. Some of these outcomes are theoretically explained, although a structure that links all aspects of the intervention is rarely found. Moreover, different designs have also been adopted for testing the interventions' effectiveness. CONCLUSION: E-health interventions that allow supportive needs to be satisfied are leading to positive effects for individuals with different preferences and priorities. Even though several communalities could be found across interventions, methodological aspects of design, implementation and evaluation still vary, leading to some inconsistency. Models and applied theories are needed to clarify such issues, thus enhancing the credibility and applicability of supportive e-health programs across target populations.
Authors: Richard Baird; Ian Banks; David Cameron; John Chester; Helena Earl; Mark Flannagan; Adam Januszewski; Richard Kennedy; Sarah Payne; Emlyn Samuel; Hannah Taylor; Roshan Agarwal; Samreen Ahmed; Caroline Archer; Ruth Board; Judith Carser; Ellen Copson; David Cunningham; Rob Coleman; Adam Dangoor; Graham Dark; Diana Eccles; Chris Gallagher; Adam Glaser; Richard Griffiths; Geoff Hall; Marcia Hall; Danielle Harari; Michael Hawkins; Mark Hill; Peter Johnson; Alison Jones; Tania Kalsi; Eleni Karapanagiotou; Zoe Kemp; Janine Mansi; Ernie Marshall; Alex Mitchell; Maung Moe; Caroline Michie; Richard Neal; Tom Newsom-Davis; Alison Norton; Richard Osborne; Gargi Patel; John Radford; Alistair Ring; Emily Shaw; Rod Skinner; Dan Stark; Sam Turnbull; Galina Velikova; Jeff White; Alison Young; Johnathan Joffe; Peter Selby Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2016-01-05
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: Femke Jansen; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Valesca van Zwieten; Birgit I Witte; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 3.603