Jamie L Larson1, Adam B Rosen2, Fernando A Wilson1. 1. 1 Department of Health Services Research and Administration, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center , Omaha, Nebraska. 2. 2 School of Health and Kinesiology, College of Education, University of Nebraska Omaha , Omaha, Nebraska.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2016, ∼1.7 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed. Cancer patients can have physical, functional, and psychosocial issues when dealing with cancer treatment. Telehealth has been effectively introduced to help deliver treatment to patients suffering from chronic disease; however, there is little consensus on its effectiveness in administering sociobehavioral cancer treatments. Thus, this study determines the benefits of telehealth-based interventions providing emotional and symptom support in improving quality of life (QOL) among cancer patients. METHODS: Two researchers conducted comprehensive searches on PubMed, SCOPUS, Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, Psychology and Behavioral Collection, and Medline Complete. Key search terms included telehealth or telemedicine and QOL and cancer. Articles were included if they assessed a telehealth-delivered intervention for adult cancer patients and provided a QOL assessment. Data were extracted to calculate mean effect sizes for QOL measures on the effectiveness of telehealth relative to usual care (UC) for cancer treatments. RESULTS: Out of 414 articles identified in our initial search, nine articles fit our inclusion criteria. Both telehealth (Hedges g = 0.211, p = 0.016) and standard of care (Hedges g = 0.217, p < 0.001) cancer treatment delivery methods demonstrated small, but statistically significant improvements in QOL measures. However, there were no statistically significant differences in effectiveness between the telehealth interventions and UC (p = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that telehealth interventions are as effective at improving QOL scores in patients undergoing cancer treatment as in-person UC. Further studies should be undertaken on different modalities of telehealth to determine its appropriate and effective use in interventions to improve the QOL for cancer patients undergoing treatment.
INTRODUCTION: In 2016, ∼1.7 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed. Cancerpatients can have physical, functional, and psychosocial issues when dealing with cancer treatment. Telehealth has been effectively introduced to help deliver treatment to patients suffering from chronic disease; however, there is little consensus on its effectiveness in administering sociobehavioral cancer treatments. Thus, this study determines the benefits of telehealth-based interventions providing emotional and symptom support in improving quality of life (QOL) among cancerpatients. METHODS: Two researchers conducted comprehensive searches on PubMed, SCOPUS, Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, Psychology and Behavioral Collection, and Medline Complete. Key search terms included telehealth or telemedicine and QOL and cancer. Articles were included if they assessed a telehealth-delivered intervention for adult cancerpatients and provided a QOL assessment. Data were extracted to calculate mean effect sizes for QOL measures on the effectiveness of telehealth relative to usual care (UC) for cancer treatments. RESULTS: Out of 414 articles identified in our initial search, nine articles fit our inclusion criteria. Both telehealth (Hedges g = 0.211, p = 0.016) and standard of care (Hedges g = 0.217, p < 0.001) cancer treatment delivery methods demonstrated small, but statistically significant improvements in QOL measures. However, there were no statistically significant differences in effectiveness between the telehealth interventions and UC (p = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that telehealth interventions are as effective at improving QOL scores in patients undergoing cancer treatment as in-person UC. Further studies should be undertaken on different modalities of telehealth to determine its appropriate and effective use in interventions to improve the QOL for cancerpatients undergoing treatment.
Authors: Matthew B Mackwood; Tor D Tosteson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Kevin M Curtis; Mary L Lowry; Jennifer A Snide; Wenyan Zhao; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2022-04-21
Authors: Roma Maguire; Lisa McCann; Grigorios Kotronoulas; Nora Kearney; Emma Ream; Jo Armes; Elisabeth Patiraki; Eileen Furlong; Patricia Fox; Alexander Gaiger; Paul McCrone; Geir Berg; Christine Miaskowkski; Antonella Cardone; Dawn Orr; Adrian Flowerday; Stylianos Katsaragakis; Andrew Darley; Simone Lubowitzki; Jenny Harris; Simon Skene; Morven Miller; Margaret Moore; Liane Lewis; Nicosha DeSouza; Peter T Donnan Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-07-21
Authors: Michael B Atkins; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; David E Fisher; Susan M Swetter; Hensin Tsao; Julio A Aguirre-Ghiso; Maria S Soengas; Ashani T Weeraratna; Keith T Flaherty; Meenhard Herlyn; Jeffrey A Sosman; Hussein A Tawbi; Anna C Pavlick; Pamela B Cassidy; Sunandana Chandra; Paul B Chapman; Adil Daud; Zeynep Eroglu; Laura K Ferris; Bernard A Fox; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Geoffrey T Gibney; Douglas Grossman; Brent A Hanks; Douglas Hanniford; Eva Hernando; Joanne M Jeter; Douglas B Johnson; Samir N Khleif; John M Kirkwood; Sancy A Leachman; Darren Mays; Kelly C Nelson; Vernon K Sondak; Ryan J Sullivan; Glenn Merlino Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Katharina Boehm; Stefani Ziewers; Maximilian P Brandt; Peter Sparwasser; Maximilian Haack; Franziska Willems; Anita Thomas; Robert Dotzauer; Thomas Höfner; Igor Tsaur; Axel Haferkamp; Hendrik Borgmann Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 20.096