PURPOSE: Rural residents face higher cancer incidence rates and mortality rates, disparities that could be mitigated with health technology interventions, yet a digital divide is also apparent. This paper systematically and critically examines existing literature to understand how digital technologies have been used to support rural oncology care. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords. Studies were eligible if they presented empirical data investigating the use of technology in rural oncology and were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal within the last decade. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. FINDINGS: Digital health has been less extensively utilized in rural oncology compared with the general cancer population and other chronic diseases. We identified 54 studies that used technology in rural cancer care delivery, a comparatively small number, representing a significant gap in the literature. Studies were classified into 4 categories: Telemedicine (n = 32), phone calls (n = 11), Internet (n = 9), and mobile phone (n = 2). Of the 54 articles, 12 were RCTs, 17 were quasi-experimental, 3 were descriptive, 12 were mixed methods, and 10 were qualitative. Most of the studies involved patients only (n = 31) and were not specific to a cancer type (n = 41). CONCLUSIONS: Further implementation and expansion of telemedicine and phone-based strategies in rural cancer care delivery are warranted. Rural cancer survivors value digital approaches to their care. However, social and behavioral determinants of health and access to technology must be considered.
PURPOSE: Rural residents face higher cancer incidence rates and mortality rates, disparities that could be mitigated with health technology interventions, yet a digital divide is also apparent. This paper systematically and critically examines existing literature to understand how digital technologies have been used to support rural oncology care. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords. Studies were eligible if they presented empirical data investigating the use of technology in rural oncology and were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal within the last decade. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. FINDINGS: Digital health has been less extensively utilized in rural oncology compared with the general cancer population and other chronic diseases. We identified 54 studies that used technology in rural cancer care delivery, a comparatively small number, representing a significant gap in the literature. Studies were classified into 4 categories: Telemedicine (n = 32), phone calls (n = 11), Internet (n = 9), and mobile phone (n = 2). Of the 54 articles, 12 were RCTs, 17 were quasi-experimental, 3 were descriptive, 12 were mixed methods, and 10 were qualitative. Most of the studies involved patients only (n = 31) and were not specific to a cancer type (n = 41). CONCLUSIONS: Further implementation and expansion of telemedicine and phone-based strategies in rural cancer care delivery are warranted. Rural cancer survivors value digital approaches to their care. However, social and behavioral determinants of health and access to technology must be considered.
Authors: Emily Haozous; Ardith Z Doorenbos; George Demiris; Linda H Eaton; Cara Towle; Anjana Kundu; Dedra Buchwald Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Sabe Sabesan; Sarah Larkins; Rebecca Evans; Suresh Varma; Athena Andrews; Petra Beuttner; Sean Brennan; Michael Young Journal: Aust J Rural Health Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 1.662
Authors: Jubilee Brown; Aly Athens; David L Tait; Erin K Crane; Robert V Higgins; R Wendel Naumann; Lejla Hadzikadic Gusic; Lisa Amacker-North Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Ellen M Lavoie Smith; Karen Skalla; Zhongze Li; Tracy Onega; June Rhoda; Charlene Gates; Amy Litterini; Mary R Scott Journal: Comput Inform Nurs Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Kathryn E Weaver; Nynikka Palmer; Lingyi Lu; L Douglas Case; Ann M Geiger Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Abbas M Hassan; Carrie K Chu; Jun Liu; Rebekah Angove; Gabrielle Rocque; Kathleen D Gallagher; Adeyiza O Momoh; Nicole E Caston; Courtney P Williams; Stephanie Wheeler; Charles E Butler; Anaeze C Offodile Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.359