Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Patients with cancer and their families often experience significant distress and deterioration in their quality of life. Psychosocial interventions were used to address patients’ and families’ psychosocial needs. Digital technology is increasingly being used to deliver psychosocial interventions to patients with cancer and their families. Objective A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to review the characteristics and effectiveness of digital health interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adult patients with cancer and their family members. Methods Databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies that tested the effects of a digital intervention on psychosocial outcomes. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal checklists for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies were used to assess quality. Standardized mean differences (ie, Hedges g) were calculated to compare intervention effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was planned to examine the effect of delivery mode, duration of the intervention, type of control, and dosage on outcomes using a random-effects modeling approach. Results A total of 65 studies involving 10,361 patients (mean 159, SD 166; range 9-803 patients per study) and 1045 caregivers or partners (mean 16, SD 54; range 9-244 caregivers or partners per study) were included in the systematic review. Of these, 32 studies were included in a meta-analysis of the effects of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Overall, the RCT studies’ general quality was mixed (applicable scores: mean 0.61, SD 0.12; range 0.38-0.91). Quasi-experimental studies were generally of moderate to high quality (applicable scores: mean 0.75, SD 0.08; range 0.63-0.89). Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral strategies were commonly used. More than half (n=38, 59%) did not identify a conceptual or theoretical framework. Most interventions were delivered through the internet (n=40, 62%). The median number of intervention sessions was 6 (range 1-56). The frequency of the intervention was highly variable, with self-paced (n=26, 40%) being the most common. The median duration was 8 weeks. The meta-analysis results showed that digital psychosocial interventions were effective in improving patients’ quality of life with a small effect size (Hedges g=0.05, 95% CI –0.01 to 0.10; I2=42.7%; P=.01). The interventions effectively reduced anxiety and depression symptoms in patients, as shown by moderate effect sizes on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total scores (Hedges g=–0.72, 95% CI –1.89 to 0.46; I2=97.6%; P<.001). Conclusions This study demonstrated the effectiveness of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in patients. Future research with a clear description of the methodology to enhance the ability to perform meta-analysis is needed. Moreover, this study provides preliminary evidence to support the integration of existing digital health psychosocial interventions in clinical practice. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42020189698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189698
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,029 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».