BACKGROUND: An increasing number of behavioral and psychosocial cancer interventions incorporate new media elements that are digital, networked, and interactive. However, it is unclear to what extent new media is being leveraged to benefit underserved racial and ethnic groups who disproportionately bear the burden of cancer. This inquiry is timely in light of growing evidence that these groups are receptive to new media. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the inclusion of these groups in research on cancer-related new media interventions and use of new media to reduce racial and ethnic cancer disparities. METHODS: A systematic search of three databases was conducted for articles published between January 2000 and March 2012 that presented studies of user experience with a behavioral or psychosocial cancer-related intervention with at least one new media component. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles were included in the final review. In about one-quarter of the studies, less than 20% of participants were African American, Latino, Asian American, or American Indian. In less than 10% of the studies, 80% or more of the samples were members of the aforementioned groups. Almost one-third of the studies reviewed were categorized as disparity focused but limited data were available on racial and ethnic differences in responses to new media interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the promise and potential of new media cancer interventions are largely unrealized among the underserved. Additional research is needed to investigate a wide range of issues related to the development and delivery of such interventions in diverse racial and ethnic groups.
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of behavioral and psychosocial cancer interventions incorporate new media elements that are digital, networked, and interactive. However, it is unclear to what extent new media is being leveraged to benefit underserved racial and ethnic groups who disproportionately bear the burden of cancer. This inquiry is timely in light of growing evidence that these groups are receptive to new media. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the inclusion of these groups in research on cancer-related new media interventions and use of new media to reduce racial and ethnic cancer disparities. METHODS: A systematic search of three databases was conducted for articles published between January 2000 and March 2012 that presented studies of user experience with a behavioral or psychosocial cancer-related intervention with at least one new media component. RESULTS: Thirty-six articles were included in the final review. In about one-quarter of the studies, less than 20% of participants were African American, Latino, Asian American, or American Indian. In less than 10% of the studies, 80% or more of the samples were members of the aforementioned groups. Almost one-third of the studies reviewed were categorized as disparity focused but limited data were available on racial and ethnic differences in responses to new media interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the promise and potential of new media cancer interventions are largely unrealized among the underserved. Additional research is needed to investigate a wide range of issues related to the development and delivery of such interventions in diverse racial and ethnic groups.
Authors: JoAnn Coleman; Sharon J Olsen; Pat K Sauter; Deborah Baker; Mary B Hodgin; Cathy Stanfield; Amy Emerling; Ralph H Hruban; Marie T Nolan Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Bret R Shaw; Jeong Yeob Han; Timothy Baker; Jeffre Witherly; Robert P Hawkins; Fiona McTavish; David H Gustafson Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2006-07-07
Authors: Yan Leykin; Seema M Thekdi; Dianne M Shumay; Ricardo F Muñoz; Michelle Riba; Laura B Dunn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Robert P Hawkins; Suzanne Pingree; Bret Shaw; Ronald C Serlin; Chris Swoboda; Jeong-Yeob Han; Cindy L Carmack; Andrew Salner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2010-12
Authors: Morton A Lieberman; Mitch Golant; Janine Giese-Davis; Andy Winzlenberg; Harold Benjamin; Keith Humphreys; Carol Kronenwetter; Stefani Russo; David Spiegel Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lauren M Hamel; David W Dougherty; Seongho Kim; Elisabeth I Heath; Lorna Mabunda; Eyouab Tadesse; RaeAnn Hill; Susan Eggly Journal: Trials Date: 2021-09-17 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Pamela Valera; Nicholas Acuna; Luis Alzate-Duque; Laura E Liang; Paula Cupertino; Jessica Merulla Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2021 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Lori Ann Post; Federico E Vaca; Brian J Biroscak; James Dziura; Cynthia Brandt; Steven L Bernstein; Richard Taylor; Liudvikas Jagminas; Gail D'Onofrio Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Melissa J Vilaro; Danyell S Wilson-Howard; Mohan S Zalake; Fatemeh Tavassoli; Benjamin C Lok; François P Modave; Thomas J George; Folakemi Odedina; Peter J Carek; Janice L Krieger Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Melissa J Vilaro; Danyell S Wilson-Howard; Lauren N Griffin; Fatemeh Tavassoli; Mohan S Zalake; Benjamin C Lok; Francois P Modave; Thomas J George; Peter J Carek; Janice L Krieger Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.955