MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410886693 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000871

Patient engagement strategies in digital health interventions for cancer survivors: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4410886693 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPsychological interventionDigital healthChecklistMental healthPublic healthMedicineMEDLINEScopusHealth carePsychologyNursingPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals can face various mental and physical health challenges after a cancer diagnosis. Digital health platforms can address some of these challenges by providing self-management tools for improving lifestyle behaviors, while reducing the burden on healthcare systems and enhancing healthcare access to underserved populations. Involving individuals with a history of cancer, termed here as "cancer survivors", in the development and evaluation of digital health platforms can improve their effectiveness. This scoping review aimed to explore the state of patient engagement in research on digital health platforms for cancer survivors, including strategies for engagement, characteristics, and identifying gaps and barriers. A systematic search was conducted in OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and Scopus from inception until May 2023. The review followed Joanna Briggs Institute's guidance for scoping reviews. Eligible studies actively involved cancer survivors in the development or evaluation of digital health platforms. These studies focused on self-management digital health platforms delivering nutrition, physical activity, and/or mental health interventions. Reporting of patient engagement was evaluated according to the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 (GRIPP2). The search strategy captured 7 studies using various patient engagement approaches, with patient and public involvement being the most frequently used (43%, n = 3). Studies were conducted in 6 countries and most focused on the development or evaluation of web-based digital health platforms (71%, n = 5). Few studies reported all elements of GRIPP2's reporting checklist (29%, n = 2). We further identified barriers and areas of improvement for patient engagement in digital health research. Patient engagement improves digital health platforms, but few studies have meaningfully included patients, therefore reporting and evaluation of patient engagement is necessary to support its adoption in digital health research projects. In addition to exploring the gaps in patient engagement practices, this scoping review serves as a foundation for future research to advance patient-oriented digital health interventions for cancer survivors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.314 · 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