Effects of Remote Web-Based Interventions on the Physiological and Psychological States of Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patients with cancer may experience physiological and psychological adverse reactions, such as fatigue, pain, anxiety, and depression, which seriously affect their quality of life. Research has shown that remote interventions based on apps or miniprograms may help improve the physiological and mental health of patients with cancer. However, due to the limited number of relevant studies, the impact of web-based interventions in cancer management remains unclear. Objective We aimed to determine the efficacy of interventions based on apps, miniprograms, or other web-based tools on the physiological (body pain and fatigue) and psychological (anxiety and depression) states and the quality of life of patients with cancer. Methods We conducted electronic literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases. The search period spanned from the inception of each database to October 15, 2024. Two researchers independently conducted literature retrieval and data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.4. Results A total of 36 randomized controlled trials were included. The remote web-based interventions significantly improved the pain intensity (n=14, 39% studies; standardized mean difference [SMD] –0.39, 95% CI –0.64 to –0.14; I2=82%; GRADE rating=low) and fatigue status (n=11, 31% studies; SMD –0.52, 95% CI –0.95 to –0.09; I2=95%; GRADE rating=low) in patients with cancer. Regarding psychology, the results indicated that the remote web-based interventions significantly improved the anxiety (n=14, 39% studies; SMD –0.60, 95% CI –0.90 to –0.30; I2=91%; GRADE rating=low) and depressive state (n=10, 28% studies; SMD –0.36, 95% CI –0.58 to –0.14; I2=81%; GRADE rating=low) of patients with cancer. For quality of life, the results showed that the remote web-based interventions had a significant positive impact on the quality of life of patients with cancer (n=26, 72% studies; SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-0.87; I2=92%; GRADE rating=low). Conclusions The remote web-based interventions were effective in reducing the intensity of physiological pain, relieving fatigue, improving depression and anxiety, and improving the quality of life of patients with cancer. However, due to the low certainty of evidence, more rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings further. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42024611768; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024611768
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".