MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409641600 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000609

Digital technology as a tool to provide social support to individuals with cancer in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4409641600 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research InstituteBC Children's HospitalB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreMcGill UniversityBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaPsychological interventionSocial supportThe InternetBreast cancerMedicineDigital healthQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationCancerInternet privacyEnvironmental healthHealth carePsychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer is a rising cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Individuals diagnosed with cancer in LMICs often have limited access to cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment services. Digital technologies, such as the Internet and mobile phones, could be used to provide support to individuals with cancer in a more accessible way. The goal of this scoping review is to understand how digital technology is being utilized by individuals with cancer for social support in LMICs. Four electronic databases were searched up to June 2024 to identify studies that reported on the use of digital technology for cancer social support in LMICs. Articles were included if they were published in English, included adults diagnosed with any type of cancer, and reported the use of digital technology for social support. Study characteristics, population demographics, and technological interventions reported were extracted. In all, 15 articles from 12 studies were included in the scoping review. Only four countries utilized digital technology for social support: China, Iran, Kenya, and Serbia. The most common cancer type reported was breast. Online health communities, Internet-based resources, mobile applications, and telecommunication were the four digital technologies reported. Overall, the articles demonstrated that the use of digital technology for social support can be beneficial for individuals diagnosed with cancer in LMICs. We found that digital technology may improve quality of life, reduce anxiety and depression, and allow individuals to connect with other individuals diagnosed with cancer. We concluded that there is a limited understanding of how digital technology can be used to support individuals with cancer in LMICs. Future research is needed to explore how digital technology can be utilized by underrepresented regions to offer avenues of support for regionally common cancer types such as cervical.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.412 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it