Will L Tarver1, Nir Menachemi2. 1. Doctoral Candidate, Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Public Health, Birmingham, AL, USA wltarver@uab.edu. 2. Professor and Chair, Health Policy and Management, Indiana University, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health information technology (HIT) has the potential to play a significant role in the management of cancer. The purpose of this review is to identify and examine empirical studies that investigate the impact of HIT in cancer care on different levels of the care continuum. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in four academic databases. The authors used a three-step search process to identify 122 studies that met specific inclusion criteria. Next, a coding sheet was used to extract information from each included article to use in an analysis. Logistic regression was used to determine study-specific characteristics that were associated with positive findings. RESULTS: Overall, 72.4% of published analyses reported a beneficial effect of HIT. Multivariate analysis found that the impact of HIT differs across the cancer continuum with studies targeting diagnosis and treatment being, respectively, 77 (P = .001) and 39 (P = .039) percentage points less likely to report a beneficial effect when compared to those targeting prevention. In addition, studies targeting HIT to patients were 31 percentage points less likely to find a beneficial effect than those targeting providers (P = .030). Lastly, studies assessing behavior change as an outcome were 41 percentage points less likely to find a beneficial effect (P = .006), while studies targeting decision making were 27 percentage points more likely to find a beneficial effect (P = .034). CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, HIT interventions seem to be more successful when targeting physicians, care in the prevention phase of the cancer continuum, and/or decision making. An agenda for future research is discussed.
INTRODUCTION: Health information technology (HIT) has the potential to play a significant role in the management of cancer. The purpose of this review is to identify and examine empirical studies that investigate the impact of HIT in cancer care on different levels of the care continuum. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in four academic databases. The authors used a three-step search process to identify 122 studies that met specific inclusion criteria. Next, a coding sheet was used to extract information from each included article to use in an analysis. Logistic regression was used to determine study-specific characteristics that were associated with positive findings. RESULTS: Overall, 72.4% of published analyses reported a beneficial effect of HIT. Multivariate analysis found that the impact of HIT differs across the cancer continuum with studies targeting diagnosis and treatment being, respectively, 77 (P = .001) and 39 (P = .039) percentage points less likely to report a beneficial effect when compared to those targeting prevention. In addition, studies targeting HIT to patients were 31 percentage points less likely to find a beneficial effect than those targeting providers (P = .030). Lastly, studies assessing behavior change as an outcome were 41 percentage points less likely to find a beneficial effect (P = .006), while studies targeting decision making were 27 percentage points more likely to find a beneficial effect (P = .034). CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, HIT interventions seem to be more successful when targeting physicians, care in the prevention phase of the cancer continuum, and/or decision making. An agenda for future research is discussed.
Authors: Steven H Woolf; Alex H Krist; Robert E Johnson; Diane B Wilson; Stephen F Rothemich; Gregory J Norman; Kelly J Devers Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Pamala A Pawloski; Gabriel A Brooks; Matthew E Nielsen; Barbara A Olson-Bullis Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Wilfred Ngwa; Beatrice W Addai; Isaac Adewole; Victoria Ainsworth; James Alaro; Olusegun I Alatise; Zipporah Ali; Benjamin O Anderson; Rose Anorlu; Stephen Avery; Prebo Barango; Noella Bih; Christopher M Booth; Otis W Brawley; Jean-Marie Dangou; Lynette Denny; Jennifer Dent; Shekinah N C Elmore; Ahmed Elzawawy; Diane Gashumba; Jennifer Geel; Katy Graef; Sumit Gupta; Serigne-Magueye Gueye; Nazik Hammad; Laila Hessissen; Andre M Ilbawi; Joyce Kambugu; Zisis Kozlakidis; Simon Manga; Lize Maree; Sulma I Mohammed; Susan Msadabwe; Miriam Mutebi; Annet Nakaganda; Ntokozo Ndlovu; Kingsley Ndoh; Jerry Ndumbalo; Mamsau Ngoma; Twalib Ngoma; Christian Ntizimira; Timothy R Rebbeck; Lorna Renner; Anya Romanoff; Fidel Rubagumya; Shahin Sayed; Shivani Sud; Hannah Simonds; Richard Sullivan; William Swanson; Verna Vanderpuye; Boateng Wiafe; David Kerr Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 54.433
Authors: Molly Maher; Elizabeth Kaziunas; Mark Ackerman; Holly Derry; Rachel Forringer; Kristen Miller; Dennis O'Reilly; Larry C An; Muneesh Tewari; David A Hanauer; Sung Won Choi Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 5.742