University of Groningen The web around patients with neuroendocrine tumors Bouma, Grytsje

(1)

University of Groningen

The web around patients with neuroendocrine tumors

Bouma, Grytsje

DOI:

10.33612/diss.98868349

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2019

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Bouma, G. (2019). The web around patients with neuroendocrine tumors: novel ways to inform, support and treat. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.98868349

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

536022-L-sub01-bw-Bouma 536022-L-sub01-bw-Bouma 536022-L-sub01-bw-Bouma 536022-L-sub01-bw-Bouma Processed on: 1-10-2019 Processed on: 1-10-2019 Processed on: 1-10-2019

Processed on: 1-10-2019 PDF page: 17PDF page: 17PDF page: 17PDF page: 17

17

CHAPTER 2

Internet-based support programs to

alleviate psychosocial and physical

symptoms in cancer patients:

a literature analysis

Grietje Bouma1‡_{, Jolien M. Admiraal1}‡_{, Elisabeth G.E. de Vries}1_,

Carolien P. Schröder1_{, Annemiek M.E. Walenkamp}1_{, Anna K.L. Reyners}1

1 _{Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen,}

University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

‡ _{The fi rst two authors contributed equally to the manuscript}

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology. 2015; 95:26-37

(3)

18 Abstract

In this review the effect of internet-based support programs on psychosocial and physical symptoms resulting from cancer diagnosis and treatment is analyzed. Selection of studies was based on the following criteria: (non-)randomized controlled trials, performed in adult cancer patients, comparing quantitative psychosocial and/or physical outcomes of an internet-based support program with (a) comparison group(s). Literature search yielded 2032 studies of which 16 fulfilled the eligibility criteria.

Three different internet-based support programs were identified: social support groups, online therapy for psychosocial/physical symptoms and online systems integrating information, support and coaching services. Outcomes improved by these programs in nine studies. Especially fatigue, social support and distress improved, regardless of the program type. All online systems showed positive effects, mainly for social support and quality of life. This analysis indicates that internet-based support programs are effective in improving psychosocial and physical symptoms in cancer patients.

Keywords: oncology, internet, online, support, therapy, effectiveness.

(4)

19 Introduction

A diagnosis of cancer often has a disruptive impact on a patient’s life. Cancer patients frequently experience psychosocial and/or physical distressing symptoms [1-3]. The importance of supporting patients adequately regarding symptoms resulting from diagnosis and treatment has been widely recognized [4,5]. However, supportive care needs still go unnoticed frequently [6,7]. To detect and meet the needs of this rapidly expanding patient population, the health care system is urged to develop and employ (cost-)eff ective programs to educate and support patients.

The internet is a viable medium by which patients can be supported regarding psychosocial and/or physical symptoms. Already in 2007, a Dutch cross-sectional survey on cancer-related internet use demonstrated that 60% of patients frequently used internet by themselves and 9% via others [8], refl ecting the high acceptance of internet as a support and information channel. It has important advantages given its wide availability and accessibility, cost-effi ciency and ability to provide tailored information and support [8-13]. During the last years, many new eHealth technologies have been introduced in cancer patient care, such as internet-based support programs addressing psychosocial/physical problems, internet-based communication and decision aids to promote shared decision making [14] and mobile applications providing survivorship care plans [15].

Internet-based support programs seem particularly well-suited to fulfi ll the unmet supportive care needs [4]. These programs have been linked to positive outcomes such as increased knowledge, perceived social support and improved health behaviors for people with chronic diseases [16]. Given the comparable nature of chronic diseases and cancer, these outcomes may also apply to cancer patients [17]. Additionally, several studies showed the feasibility and acceptability of internet-based support programs for both psychosocial and physical symptoms in these patients [4,18,19].

Despite these promising fi ndings, the eff ects of internet-based support programs specifi cally designed for cancer patients are less clear. Reviews on the eff ects of internet- based support programs are scarce in the fi eld of oncology. This paucity is due to the heterogeneous nature of these programs as well as measured study outcomes which renders rigorous evaluation of the eff ects diffi cult. The available reviews are either rather broad, for example summarizing all types of internet-based support including non- professional resources [20], or specifi cally focus on a single type of support program (e.g. online psychological therapy [4]) or tumor type [12]. Also, assessment of study quality has received limited attention. Therefore, the aim of this review was to analyze published clinical trials to assess the eff ects of internet-based support programs. More specifi cally, it was examined whether these programs are capable of alleviating psychosocial and/ or physical symptoms resulting from cancer diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, the (methodological) quality of the included studies was evaluated.

Internet-based support programs to alleviate psychosocial and physical symptoms in cancer patients: a literature analysis

(5)

20

Methods

Eligibility criteria for article selection

Articles were selected based on the following eligibility criteria.

Study design. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized controlled trials (CT), performed in adult cancer patients (≥18 years), comparing quantitative psychosocial and/or physical outcomes of an internet-based support program with (a) comparison group(s). ‘Cancer patients’ were defined as individuals diagnosed with any solid cancer type, irrespective of disease stage, treatment phase, type of treatment and time since diagnosis. Studies in mixed populations were only included if data for cancer patients were reported separately. Studies must have reported original data. Letters to the editor, patient stories, posters, thesis, review studies and non-English records were excluded. Internet-based support program. An internet-based support program was defined as any program that aimed to rehabilitate or support cancer patients regarding psychosocial and/or physical symptoms resulting from diagnosis and treatment. Programs that were not primarily designed to support/ rehabilitate (e.g. treatment decision aids and health behavior change interventions) were beyond the scope of this review and excluded. Programs focusing exclusively on education were only included if the education aimed to support/rehabilitate cancer patients. The internet-based support program should have been designed by (a) health care professional(s). Studies regarding social support groups were eligible if the groups were moderated by a health care professional. Studies that described programs without access to the internet (e.g. CD-rom or DVD) or to a website (e.g. therapy via e-mail) were excluded.

Outcomes. Quantitative psychosocial (e.g. distress, anxiety, depression and quality of life (QoL)) and physical variables (e.g. fatigue, insomnia, pain, and sexual problems) were the outcomes of interest.

Search strategy and selection method

The CINAHL, MEDLINE (PubMed) and PsychINFO databases were searched from inception without limitations. For each database, one review author screened the titles and abstract of the retrieved records. Studies that were identified as clearly nonrelevant were excluded at this stage. Studies that were considered as potentially relevant or as ambiguous regarding eligibility were accessed in full-text and evaluated by two authors independently. The last search was performed on 31-01-2014. The following search terms were used alone or in combination: neoplasm, cancer, carcinoma, oncology,

(6)

21 internet, web, online, eHealth, telemedicine, patient education, social support, psycho-education, rehabilitation, support group, support system, therapy, disease management (see Appendix 1 for the full search). The search terms were extensively tested against the output retrieved from initial hand searches. Additionally, reference lists from retrieved articles and relevant systematic reviews were scanned to identify other eligible studies. Quality assessment

Each included study was assigned a level of evidence according to the Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine [21]. That system distinguishes fi ve levels of evidence ranging from 1 (systematic review of randomized trials; the highest level of evidence) to 5 (mechanism-based reasoning; the lowest level of evidence). Additionally, we assessed the methodological quality of the included studies following a checklist used in a review regarding internet-based interventions in chronic diseases [17], which is an adapted version of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group [22]. We changed the item ‘method of randomization explained’ into ‘randomized groups’ as we also included non-randomized CTs. The item on ‘assessor blinding’ was excluded since it is not feasible to blind the assessor in case of self-report measures. The quality score could range from 0 to 12 points. See Table 3 for the checklist and scoring procedures.

Results

The initial search yielded 2,032 articles and was reduced to 15 original articles (=15 studies) after application of the eligibility criteria. One additional article was identifi ed after examination of the references of included articles and relevant systematic reviews (see Figure 1).

Description of selected included studies

Characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. All studies were published in 2001 or later, with the majority (N = 10) being published after 2010. Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 450 participants. All studies had a pre- and post-test design to measure outcome diff erences in the group(s). Twelve studies were RCTs. Three studies used several experimental [23] or control [10,24] groups, all other studies used a single experimental and control group (e.g. wait-list control, control group receiving usual care). One study examined two diff erent types of programs, i.e. an online therapy for psychosocial symptoms with or without additional use of a support group [25].

(7)

22 Pr og ram E xp er ime ntal (E ) an d co ntr ol g ro up s ( C) Targ et p op ul ati on an d samp le si ze Di se ase stag e Tr eatment p hase O nl ine sup por t gr oup s Bo so m B uddi es [33] E ( N =3 6) : B os om B uddi es C ( N =36): w ai t-lis t co ntr ol g ro up Bre as t ca nc er p ati en ts (N =72) (≤ 32 mo nth s o f di ag no sis o f p rim ary b re as t can ce r) N ot spec ifi ed N ot spec ifi ed Gy ne Ga ls [31] E ( N =13): Gyn eG al s C ( N =14): w ai t-lis t co ntr ol g ro up Sex ua lly d ist re ss ed g ynec ol og ic c an cer p at ie nt s (N =27) (< 5 ye ars p os t-di ag no sis ) St age I -III Fo llo w -up O nl ine c an cer su ppo rt gr oup [34] E ( N =48): i nte rn et ca nc er s up po rt g ro up C ( N =20): us ua l c are Sp ani sh -d omi nan t s pe aki ng immi gran t b re as t can ce r p ati en ts (N =68) N ot spec ifi ed Du rin g tr eatme nt an d fo llo w -up O nl ine sup po rt g ro up [35] E ( N =2 4) : m oder at ed o nl ine s up po rt g ro up C ( N =26): pe er -led o nl ine su ppo rt g ro up ( no u se o f pre se le cte d to pi cs o r i np ut fro m a mo de rato r) Bre as t ca nc er p ati en ts (N =5 0) St ages I-IV Fo llo w -up: c om pl et ed tr eatme nt ≤32 mo nth s O nl ine sup po rt g ro up [29] E ( N =20): ed uc ati on al an d s up po rt n etw ork p ro gram C ( N =20): w ai t-lis t co ntr ol g ro up , re ce ive d r es ou rce ki t inc lud ing pa m ph let s Pro state c an ce r p ati en ts (N =40) (< 5 ye ars p os t-di ag no sis , b ei ng m ar ried/ liv ing w ith si gn ifi ca nt o th er) N ot spec ifi ed N ot spec ifi ed On lin e th er ap y f or p sy ch os oci al /p hy si ca l s ym pt om s CA RE ss (C ouns el ing a bo ut reg ai ni ng e re ct io ns a nd sex ua l s ati sfac tio n) [24] E1 ( N =33): i nte rn et -ba sed v er sio n o f C AR Es s C1 (N =48): w ai t-lis t co ntr ol g ro up C2 ( N =40): f ac e-to -fac e ver sio n o f CA RE ss a Pro state c an ce r p ati en ts (N =121) (het er os ex ua l c oup les w ith t he m al e part ne r ha vi ng und er go ne lo ca liz ed p ro st at e c an cer tr eatme nt) St ages I-III Fo llo w -up: d ef ini tiv e su rg ery o r r ad io th era py bet w ee n 3 m ont hs a nd 7 ye ars p re vi ou sly In te rn et -ba sed co pi ng pr ogr am [32] E ( N =32): int er net -ba sed c opi ng pr og ra m C ( N =30): w ai tin g-lis t co ntr ol g ro up Earl y s tag e b re as t ca nc er pati en ts (N =62) St age 0 -II I N ot spec ifi ed O nw ard [25] E ( N =15): O nw ard (In di vi du al In te rn et In te rve nti on (III ) + int er net sup po rt g ro up) C ( N =16): I II on ly Vari ou s c an ce r p ati en ts : b re as t, l ymp ho ma, lu ng , co lo n, sarco ma a nd th yro id (N =3 1) St ages I-IV Fo llo w u p: afte r co mp le tio n rad iati on o r ch emo th erap y Sl ee p H ea lthy U sin g T he In te rn et (SHUT i) [26] E ( N =14): S HUT i C ( N =14): w ai t-lis t co ntr ol g ro up Pa tie nts w ith an y typ e o f c an ce r an d i ns omn ia (N =2 8) St age I -IV (at inc lus io n i n rem iss io n) Fo llo w u p: c om pl et ed ac tive tr eatme nt ≥ 1 mo nth Table 1. M ethodolog ical char ac ter

(8)

23 Pr og ram E xp er ime ntal (E ) an d co ntr ol g ro up s ( C) Targ et p op ul ati on an d samp le si ze Di se ase stag e Tr eatment p hase On lin e sy stems CH ESS (Co mp re he ns ive Hea lth E nha nc em ent Sup po rt Sy st em ) [23] E1 ( N =118): CH ES S i nfo rmati on se rvi ce s E2 ( N =109): CH ES S i nfo rmati on + su pp ort se rvi ce s E3 ( N =111): CH ES S i nfo rmati on + su pp ort + c oac hi ng se rvi ce s C (N =112): i nte rn et o nl y Bre as t ca nc er p ati en ts (N =450) (≤ 2 mo nth s o f di ag no sis o f pr ima ry b re as t ca nc er or rec ur renc e) N ot spec ifi ed N ot spec ifi ed CH ESS [36] E ( N =147): CH ES S ( fu ll ver sio n) C ( N =148): re ce ive d co py o f Dr S us an L ove ’s B re as t Bo ok Yo un ge r (≤6 0 ye ars ) b re as t ca nc er p ati en ts (N =295) ( < 6 mo nth s o f di ag no sis ) St ages I-IV N ot spec ifi ed CH ESS [37] E ( N =286): CH ES S ( fu ll ver sio n) C ( N =51): c on tr ol g ro up (d raw n fr om a se parate R CT ) Lo w -in co me b re as t ca nc er pati en ts (N =286) (< 1 ye ar o f di ag no sis o r me ta stat ic c an ce r) St ages I-IV N ot spec ifi ed CH ESS [10] E1 ( N =91): CH ES S ( fu ll ver sio n) C1 ( N =83): i nte rn et ac ce ss + li st o f hi gh q ual ity bre as t ca nc er w ebs ite s C2 ( N =83): bo oks o r au di otap es o n b re as t ca nc er r es ou rce s Bre as t ca nc er p ati en ts (N =257) (< 61 d ays o f di ag no sis ) St ages I-IV N ot spec ifi ed El ec tr oni c h ea lth in fo rmati on su pp ort sy st em [30] E ( N =39): el ec tr on ic h eal th in fo rmati on su pp ort sys te m + stan dar d c are C ( N =145): st an da rd c are Po st -s ur ger y hea d a nd n ec k c anc er p at ie nt s (N =184) N ot spec ifi ed Du rin g tr eatme nt an d fo llo w -up Hea lth N avi gat io n [28] E ( N =136): H eal th N avi gat io n C ( N =137): w ai tin g-list c on tro l gr ou p Vari ou s c an ce r p ati en ts (b re as t, s to mac h, c ol on , ute rin e, lu ng , th yro id ) w ith mo de rate to se ve re fati gu e ( N =273) St ages I-III Fo llo w up: c om pl et ed pri mary tr eatm en t ≤24 mo nth s W ebC ho ic e [27] E ( N =162): W eb Ch oi ce C ( N =163): i nfo rmati on sh ee t w ith su gg es tio ns fo r p ub lic ly ava ilab le c an ce r-re le van t i nt ern et s ite s Bre as t an d pro state c an ce r p ati en ts (N =325) St ages I-IV Du rin g tr eatme nt Pr og ram E xp er ime ntal (E ) an d co ntr ol g ro up s ( C) Targ et p op ul ati on an d samp le si ze Di se ase stag e Tr eatment p hase O nl ine sup por t gr oup s Bo so m B uddi es [33] E ( N =3 6) : B os om B uddi es C ( N =36): w ai t-lis t co ntr ol g ro up Bre as t ca nc er p ati en ts (N =72) (≤ 32 mo nth s o f di ag no sis o f p rim ary b re as t can ce r) N ot spec ifi ed N ot spec ifi ed Gy ne Ga ls [31] E ( N =13): Gyn eG al s C ( N =14): w ai t-lis t co ntr ol g ro up Sex ua lly d ist re ss ed g ynec ol og ic c an cer p at ie nt s (N =27) (< 5 ye ars p os t-di ag no sis ) St age I -III Fo llo w -up Table 1. M ethodolog ical char ac ter

istics of the included studies (c

on tinued) a R andomiz ed g roups w er e r epor

ted only in the cur

rent analysis

(9)

24

Description of participants

The 16 studies comprised 2620 patients. Eight studies focused exclusively on female breast cancer patients. Four studies contained patients with various tumor types [25-28], of which breast cancer patients constituted 39-64%. The remaining studies were performed in patients with prostate [24,29], head and neck [30] and gynecologic cancer [31]. Nine studies included only women and two studies only men [24,29]. The overall median age of the patients was 52 years (range 42-67 years; two studies did not report on age). Seven studies analyzed cancer patients with all disease stages (stage I-IV), whereas four studies only included patients with locally or locally advanced cancer (stage I-III) [24,28,31,32]. Five studies did not specify patients’ disease stage [23,29,30,33,34]. Six studies included solely patients who had completed cancer treatment during their follow-up [24-26,28,31,35], one study only included patients during treatment [27] and two studies patients in all treatment phases [30,34]. The remaining studies did not specify patients’ treatment phase.

(10)

25

Figure 1. Inclusion process for the literature analysis

2032 articles identified by database search: - 1038: MEDLINE (PubMed) - 746: CINAHL - 248: PsychINFO 451 duplicates excluded 1581 articles

1419 ‘clearly not relevant’ articles excluded based on title and abstract

162 articles

140 articles excluded after reading full-text (N) based on:

- No focus on cancer survivors (4) - No use of the internet or website (10) - Not designed to support/rehabilitate (5) - No outcomes reported (23)

- Feasibility/developmental study (13) - Not designed/moderated by professional (17) - Unstructured use of the internet (2)

- Review, letter to the editor, patient story, thesis or book chapter (20)

- No relevant outcomes reported (22) - No full-text available (24)

22 articles

7 articles considering single-arm studies excluded

15 articles

1 article included (extracted from references of included articles)

16 articles remaining for analysis included

(11)

26

Description of internet-based support programs

Table 2 shows the characteristics of the internet-based support programs. Three different types of programs could be distinguished: social support groups [29,31,33-35], online therapy for psychosocial/physical symptoms [24-26,32] and online systems integrating multiple services such as information, support, communication and coaching services [10,23,27,28,30,36,37]. All but one study [34], provided patient education within the program. The majority of the programs provided the opportunity to communicate with peers [10,23,25,27,29-37] and/or professionals [10,23,24,27,28,30,31,34-37]. Exercises such as cognitive-behavioral homework and coping-skills training were part of the program in five studies [23-26,32]. Except for one internet-based support program [26], all programs were facilitated by a moderator. The moderator’s role varied and included facilitating a discussion and/or introducing new topics in a support group [33,35], being the expert to ask questions [10,23,27,36,37] or having an active role in the intervention such as chatting, discussing and mailing with participants [24,27,30,31,34]. Two studies [28,29] did not describe the role of the moderator. The duration of the programs ranged from 6 weeks to 1 year.

Outcomes of included studies

The used measurement instruments and corresponding outcomes of the studies are presented in Table 2. Psychosocial outcome measures, such as (health-related) QoL, depression, distress/stress and perceived social support were the most common used outcome measures. Some studies used validated as well as self-constructed or modified questionnaires [10,23,24,26,28,30,31,33,34,36,37].

Positive effects of the internet-based support programs on outcome measures and/or measurement points were reported in nine studies. Of these, seven studies used online systems, one a social support group and one online therapy. Two studies mentioned that the number of included patients was insufficient to detect significant differences [25,31]. Patients in the experimental group experienced a better QoL compared to those in the control group(s) in three studies examining online systems [10,28,30] whereas eight other studies did not report any differences in QoL [23,26,27,29,32,34,36,37]. Two studies found positive effects within the experimental group(s) over time and stable or decreased QoL in the control group, but did not report differences between groups [24,29]. Only one [33] out of seven studies measuring depression found a significant positive effect in favor of the intervention group. A social support group for breast cancer patients resulted in less perceived (post-traumatic) stress [33] and an online system for breast and prostate cancer patients diminished global symptom distress [27]. Other studies using psychological [24,31,32] or sexual distress [31] as outcome measure did not show any effects. Of the six studies having social support as an outcome, three [10,36,37] examining the ‘CHESS’ program found a positive effect in favor of the intervention group.

(12)

27 Programs focusing on cancer-related fatigue [28] and insomnia [26] showed a positive eff ect on fatigue.

Only three studies examined long term eff ects (>3 months post-intervention) [10,23,24] of which one had positive long term eff ects up till 9 months after the end of the intervention on QoL and social support [10].

Quality assessment of included studies

Using the adapted Cochrane list for internet-based interventions, the median total score for methodological quality was 6 (observed range 1-8). The level of evidence based on the Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine together with the (methodological) quality of the included studies is summarized in Table 3.

(13)

28 Table 2. Char ac ter istics of the in ter net -based suppor t pr og

rams and out

comes of the included studies

Pr og ram De scr ipt io n of p ro gra m Dur at io n pr og ram and me asu re me nt p oi nts O utc ome me asu re s and me asu re me nt in str ume nts Po si tiv e effec t( s) fo r e xp er ime ntal g ro up (s) co mp ar ed to c on tr ol g ro up (s) O nl ine sup por t gr oup s Bo so m Bu ddi es [33] Sup po rt g ro up mo de rate d by a m en tal h eal th pro fes sio nal . W ee kl y, bre as t ca nc er r el ate d to pi cs w er e int ro duc ed a nd d isc us sed . 12 w ee ks . M ea sur es a t b as el ine an d 12 w ee ks . •D epr es sio n: C ES -D e •Po stt rau mati c s tr es s d iso rd er: P CL -C f •An xi et y: ST AI g •S tr es s: PS S h •S el f-e ffi cac y: CBI i •S tyl e o f c op in g w ith c an ce r: MI N I-M AC j •G ro up ex per ie nc e a + D epr es sio n + P os tt rau mati c s tr es s d iso rd er + P erce ive d str es s Gy ne Ga ls [31] As yn ch ro no us d isc us sio n fo ru m mo de rate d by p sy ch ol ogi st s a nd pro vi sio n o f ps yc ho -ed uc ati on al mate rial s a dd re ss in g ps yc ho so ci al imp ac t o f gy na ec ol ogi c ca nce r. W eek ly , n ew to pi cs w er e int ro du ced. 12 w ee ks . M ea sur es a t b as el ine and po st -in te rve nti on . •Se xu al d ist re ss : FSD S-R k •A nx iet y and depr es sio n: H AD S l • Il ln es s i ntr us ive ne ss : IIR S m N o s ig ni fic an t o utco me s (S tu dy no t po w er ed t o d et ec t si gni fic ant di ffer enc es ) O nl ine c an cer sup po rt gr oup [34] Su pp ort g ro up mo de rate d by a tr ai ne d bi lin gu al fac ili tato r. W ee kl y, is su es o f i nte re st w er e di sc usse d. 30 w ee ks . Me as ur es at p re - a nd po st -int er ve nt io n. •D epr es sio n: C ES -D e •Per so nal g ro w th : PT GI n, b •Qo L: FAC T-B o, b •P ai n a N o s ig ni fic an t o utco me s O nl ine sup po rt gr oup [35] Sup po rt g ro up i n a se m i-s tr uc tur ed ( ps yc ho -ed uc ati on al ) f ormat u sin g asy nc hro no us co mmu ni cati on mo de rate d by a s oc ial w or ker . W ee kl y, new to pi cs w er e i nt ro duc ed and di sc uss ed . 12 w ee ks . M ea sur es a t b as el ine, 6, 12 an d 16 w ee ks . •D epr es sio n: C ES -D e N o s ig ni fic an t o utco me s O nl ine sup po rt gr oup [29] Ed uc ati on al an d su pp ort n etw ork p ro gram fo r p ro state c an ce r p ati en ts . 6 w eek s. M ea sur es a t b as el ine, 6 an d 8 w eek s. •Qo L: - SF -12v2 p - E PI C-26 q - S ati sfac tio n w ith li fe sc al e - R el at io ns hi p s at isf ac tio n q ues tio nna ire N o s ig ni fic an t o utco me s (at 6 w ee ks : 3 ( ou t o f 10) q ual ity of l ife su bs cal es si gn ifi can tly i mp ro ve d ove r t ime ) On lin e th er ap y f or p sy ch os oci al /p hy si ca l s ym pt om s CAR Es s C [24] Se xu al co un se lin g p ro gram mo de rate d by th erap ists . C ou pl es re cei ve d co gn itiv e-be havi oral h ome w ork c ons ide rin g s ex ua lly -re la ted i ss ues . 12 w ee ks . M ea sur es a t b as el ine an d 12 w ee ks + 3, 6, 12 m ont hs b ey on d int er ve nt io n p er io d. •S ex ual sa tis fa cti on an d fun cti on fo r me n: IIE F r •D ist re ss: BS I-18 s •R el ati on sh ip sa tis fac tio n: A -D AS t N o fo rmal stati sti cal co mp ari so n of E 1 w ith C1/C2 re po rt ed (IIE F s co re s o f E 1 an d C2 i mp ro ve d s ig ni fica nt ly ove r t ime , w he re as C1 di d n ot) In te rn et -ba sed c opi ng pro gram [32] Se lf-gui ded i nt er ve nt io n c ons ist in g o f c opi ng -sk ill s t ra in in g e xe rc ise s, a sm al l d isc ussi on bo ar d c opi ng g ro up a nd ed uc at io n o n symp to m ma nag eme nt. 12 w ee ks . M ea sur es a t b as el ine and 12 w ee ks . •H eal th re late d Q oL : F ACT -B o a nd E ur oQ ol -5D “ fee lin g t he rmo me te r” •Di str es s: IE S u • P hys ic al w el l-bei ng : M SA S v N o s ig ni fic an t o utco me s

(14)

29 Pr og ram De scr ipt io n of p ro gra m Dur at io n pr og ram and me asu re me nt p oi nts O utc ome s and me asu re me nt i ns tr ume nts Po si tiv e effec t( s) fo r e xp er ime ntal g ro up (s) co mp ar ed to c on tr ol g ro up (s) On lin e th er ap y f or p sy ch os oci al /p hy si ca l s ym pt om s O nw ard [25] Pro gram fo r d ep re ss io n tr eatm en t ba sed o n co gn iti ve b eh avi oral p rin ci pl es , i nc lu di ng an int er net sup po rt g ro up. T w ic e a w eek n ew le sso ns a nd to ol s w er e rel ea sed. 8 w eek s. M ea sur es a t b as el ine, 4 an d 8 w eek s. •De pr es sive symp to ms : HA DS l N o si gn ifi ca nt o ut co m es (S tu dy n ot p ow ere d to d et ec t s ig ni fica nt di ffer enc es ) SHU Ti [26] Pro gram fo r i mp ro vi ng in so mn ia symp to ms , ba sed on c og ni tiv e-be havi oral th erap y. T he pro gram i nc lu de s 6 in te racti ve c ore s an d a sle ep d iary. 9 w eek s. M ea sur es in 2 w eek s be fo re an d af te r in te rve nti on . •In so mn ia s eve rity: I SI w •S le ep d iary: s le ep e ffi ci en cy ( SE ), to tal slee p t im e ( TS T) , s leep o ns et la te nc y ( SO L) •F ati gu e: M FS I-SF x •Mo od : H AD S l •Q oL : SF -12 p + In so mn ia s eve rity + SE (s ub sc al e s leep di ar y) + SO L ( subs ca le sl ee p d ia ry ) + Fa tig ue On lin e sy stems CH ESS [23] Ho me -b as ed sys te m i nte grat in g i nfo rmati on , sup po rt (i nc lud ing di sc us sio n gro up s, ‘as k an ex pe rt ’) an d c oac hi ng se rvi ce s ( e. g. f or e as in g di st res s, h ea lthy rel at ing ). 3 mo nth s. M ea sur es a t b as el ine, 2 an d 6 w ee ks , 3, 6 an d 12 mo nth s. (A nal ys is re po rt ed fo r 6 w ee ks , 3 an d 6 mo nth s) •E mo tio nal p ro ce ss in g a •Po siti ve c op in g: Carv er' s B rie f C op e •F unc tio na l w el l-b ei ng : F ACT -B o •Bre as t ca nc er co nc ern s: F ACT -B o •S oc ial su pp ort : Wi sc on sin so ci al su pp ort sc al e 6 w eek s + E mo tio nal p ro ce ss in g ( E1> C) + P os iti ve c opi ng (E 2>C ) 3 mo nth s + E m ot io na l p ro ce ssi ng ( E1> C; E 2> C) CH ESS [36] Ho me -b as ed sys te m i nte grat in g i nfo rmati on , sup po rt a nd d ec isi on ser vi ces (i nc ludi ng he al th c ha rts, de ci sio n a id , a ct io n pl an) . 6 mo nth s. M ea sur es a t b as el ine, 2 an d 5 mo nth s. •So ci al su ppo rt a •Qo L: FAC T-B o 5 mo nth s + So ci al sup po rt CH ESS [37] See d es cr ipt io n ab ove . 4 mo nth s. M ea sur es a t b as el ine an d 4 mo nth s. •P er cei ve d so ci al sup po rt a •Q oL : FAC T-B o •N eg at ive e mo tio n a •H ea lth sel f-e ffi cac y a + P er ce iv ed so ci al sup po rt + N ega tiv e em ot io n CH ESS [10] Se e des cr ipt io n ab ove . 5 mo nth s. M ea sur es a t b as el ine, 2, 4 an d 9 mo nth s. •Q oL : F ACT -B o •S oc ia l s uppo rt a 2 mo nth s + Q oL (E 1> C1) + So ci al suppo rt (E 1>C 1) 4 mo nth s + Q oL (E 1> C1) + S oc ial su pp ort (E 1> C1; E 1> C2) 9 mo nth s + Qo L (E 1> C2) + So ci al suppo rt (E 1>C 2) El ec tr oni c hea lth in fo rmati on sup po rt sys te m [30] El ec tr on ic h eal th in fo rmati on su pp ort sys te m, in te grati ng c ommu ni cati on (s en d me ss ag es ), i nfo rmati on , s up po rt (p ee r-to -pe er vi a f oru m) an d he al th -m oni to ring . 6 w eek s. M ea sur es a t b as el ine, 6 w eek s a nd 3 m ont hs . •Q oL : Q oL q ues tio nna ire d 6 w eek s + 5 ( ou t o f 22) su bs cal es 3 mo nth s + 1 ( ou t o f 22) su bs cal e Table 2. Char ac ter istics of the in ter net -based suppor t pr og

rams and out

comes of the included studies (c

on

tinued)

(15)

30 Table 2. Char ac ter istics of the in ter net -based suppor t pr og

rams and out

comes of the included studies (c

on tinued) Pr og ram De scr ipt io n of p ro gra m Dur at io n pro gra m a nd me asu re me nt p oi nts O utc ome s and me asu re me nt i ns tr ume nts Po si tiv e effec t( s) fo r e xp er ime ntal g ro up (s) co mp ar ed to c on tr ol g ro up (s) On lin e sy stems Hea lth N avi gati on [28] Tai lo re d e du cati on p ro gram fo r ca nce r-re late d fa tig ue . C on sist in g o f s el f-as ses sm ent a nd g ra phi c r epo rt s, hea lth ad vi ce , o nl ine educ at io n, e nha nc ed a nd sh ort me ss ag e s ervi ce s, c are gi ve r m oni to ring a nd s uppo rt , a nd hea lth pro fes sio nal mo ni to rin g. 12 w ee ks . M ea sur es a t b as el ine an d 12 w ee ks . •Can ce r r el ate d fa tig ue : BF I y a nd FSS z •H RQo L: E O RT C Q LQ -C30 aa •E ne rg y c on se rvati on : E CS I ab •Phys ic al ac tivi ty: ME T ac •N utr iti on al statu s: M N A ad •Psycho lo gi cal d istr es s: H ADS l •Pa in : BP I ae •S le ep q ual ity/ qu an tity: M O SS -S S af + Can ce r r el ate d fa tig ue + H ea lth -re late d qu al ity o f l ife (o nl y c og ni tive fun cti on al sc al e) W ebC ho ic e [27] In te racti ve h eal th c ommu ni cati on ap pl ic ati on fo r r ed uc in g sy m pt om d ist re ss co ntai ni ng a n ass es sme nt co mp on en t, tai lo re d s ymp to m se lf-man ag eme nt su pp ort , i nfo rmati on sec tio n, co mmu ni cati on se cti on an d a di ary. 1 ye ar. M ea sur es a t b as el ine, 3, 6, 9 an d 12 mo nth s. (an al ys is fo r 12 mo nth s re po rt ed o nl y) •S ymp to m d istr es s: MS AS -SF v •D epr es sio n: C ES -D a •S el f-e ffi cac y: CBI i •H ea lth r el at ed Q oL : 15D -HRQ ol ins tr um ent •S oc ial su pp ort : Me di cal O utco me s S tu dy So ci al S urve y + 1 ( ou t o f 3) su bs cal e o f MS AS -S F (= gl ob al d ist re ss i nd ex ) a Self-construct ed questionnair e b y the authors , bQ uestionnair e tr anslat ed b y authors , cO nly r epor ting measur

ement instruments and out

comes

for the male par

tner , d3 out of 22 subsc ales w er e self-construct ed . eCent er for Epidemiologic al Studies -D epr ession S cale , fPT SD Check list-Civilian v ersion, gStat e-Tr ait A nxiet y Inv ent or y-stat e S cale , hPer ceiv ed Str ess S cale , iCanc er Behavior Inv ent or y, jMINI-Mental A djustment to C anc er S cale , kFemale S exual D istr ess S cale -R evised , lHospital A nxiet y and D epr ession S cale , mIllness Intrusiv eness R ating S cale , nPosttr aumatic Gr owth Inv ent or y, oFunctional A ssessment of C anc er T her ap y-Br east, pShor t F

orm Health Sur

ve y, qEx tended P rostat e C anc er Index C omposit e, rInt ernational Index of Er ectile F unction, sBrief Sympt om Inv ent or y-18, tAbbr eviat ed form of the D yadic A djustment S cale , uImpact of E vents S cale , vMemorial Sympt om A ssessment Sc ale(-shor t form), wInsomnia Se verit y Index, xMultidimensional F atigue Sympt om Inv ent or y-Shor t F orm, yBrief F atigue Inv ent or y, zFatigue S ev erit y S cale , aaEur opean O rganisation for R esear ch and T reatment of C anc er Q ualit y of Life Q uestionnair e-C 30, abEner gy -C onser vation Str at egies Inv ent or y, acMetabolic Equiv alent of T ask , adM ini-Nutritional A ssessment questionnair e, aeBrief P ain Inv ent or y, afMedic al O ut come Study -Sleep S cale .

(16)

31 St udy Lev el o f ev ide nc e c M et hod ol og ic al q ual ity Tot al sc or e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 On line sup por t g ro up s Bo so m Bud di es [33 ] 2 √ √ - √ - √ √ - √ - √ √ 8 GyneGal s [31 ] 2 √ √ ? ? - √ - - √ - √ √ 6 Onl in e can cer sup po rt gro up [34 ] 3 - - - ? - - - - ? - ? √ 1 Onl in e sup po rt g ro up [35 ] 3 √ - - - √ √ - - √ √ ? √ 6 Onl in e sup po rt g ro up [29 ] 2 √ √ ? ? - - - - √ - ? √ 4 O nl in e t her ap y f or p sy ch os oci al /p hys ic al sy m pto ms CA REss [24] 2 √ √ ? ? - √ √ √ √ - - √ 7 In te rn et -b ased co pi ng pr og ram [32] 2 √ √ ? - - √ - - √ - - √ 5 Onward [25 ] 2 √ √ ? - √ √ - - √ - √ √ 7 SH UTi [26 ] 2 √ √ ? - - √ - - √ - √ √ 6 O nl in e sy ste ms CH ESS [23 ] 2 √ √ ? ? - - - √ √ √ ? - 5 CH ESS [36 ] 2 √ √ ? ? - - - - √ √ √ √ 6 CH ESS [37 ] 4 √ - - - - √ - - ? - √ √ 4 CH ESS [10 ] 2 √ √ √ - - √ - √ √ - √ √ 8 El ect ro ni c heal th i nfo rm ati on sup po rt sy ste m [30] 3 √ - - - √ √ - - √ - - √ 5 Heal th N av ig ati on [28] 2 √ √ √ √ - - - - √ √ √ √ 8 We bCh oi ce [27] 2 √ √ ? √ - √ - - √ √ √ √ 8 Table 3. Q ualit y assessmen

t of the included studies

a,b a1=Speciﬁ c ation of eligibilit y crit eria, 2=r andomiz ed gr oups , 3=tr eatment alloc ation conc ealed , 4=gr oups similar at baseline , 5=explicit description of int er ventions , 6 = description of c omplianc e, 7 = description of dr opout and c omparison with c omplet ers , 8 = long-t erm follo w -up (>3 months af

ter post- int

er

vention assessment), 9 = timing of out

come assessment c ompar able , 10 = sample siz e described with po w er calculation, 11 = int ention-t o-tr eat analyses , 12 = point estimat es and measur es of v ariabilit y. b √ = r epor ted it em or y es (1 point), — = unr epor ted it em or no (0 points), ? = unclear it em or unable t o det ermine (0 points). T otal sc or e c an be 12. c Le vel of e videnc e ac cor ding t o the syst em used b y the O xfor d C entr e for E videnc e-Based Medicine .

2

(17)

32

Discussion

The most apparent result from this review is that the majority of the included studies reported positive effects on patient-reported psychosocial and physical symptoms, regardless of the used program type. This result differs from a similar review conducted in 2010 [20]. That review focused on empirical studies (N = 24 including 37 articles) reporting outcomes of the use of online support/resources by adult cancer survivors. The authors concluded that use of online support/resources showed promising but inconclusive evidence for positive outcomes due to a lack of rigorous evaluations. In the current review rather strict criteria for the final inclusion for analysis of studies were used. For example, only (non-) randomized controlled trials focusing on professionally designed internet-based programs for cancer patients were included. As a result, only five studies included in the previous review met our inclusion criteria. Moreover, our review includes ten studies published since 2010, of which six reported positive outcomes.

Comparable reviews analyzing studies conducted in patients with chronic diseases also showed positive effects of internet-based support programs. A recent systematic review included 17 studies examining online mental health interventions in patients with chronic gastrointestinal conditions. That review showed that these online interventions resulted in less somatic symptoms and an improved quality of life [38]. Another systematic review in patients with various chronic diseases including diabetes, heart failure and COPD (N = 18 RCTs) found beneficial effects of internet-based interventions on patient empowerment [17]. A Cochrane systematic review involving 24 RCTs including in total 3739 patients with chronic diseases found a positive effect of online systems on perceived social support [16]. This finding is in line with our review that showed positive effects for all online systems, mainly for the outcome social support. Given these findings, online systems may well be a generic tool to support patients with various diseases, in different disease stages and treatment phases.

The supportive care needs of cancer patients may differ depending on their sociodemographic and illness-related characteristics. For example, several studies reported that supportive care needs vary by age [39-41]. Therefore, it has been recommended that interventions fit the characteristics and needs of recruited patients [4]. In the current review, patients’ median age was relatively young (52 years) compared to the median age of cancer patients at diagnosis which is 66 years [42]. The majority of the studies included in this review focused on breast cancer patients. Whether internet-based support programs should be adapted to age groups and/or tumor types to optimize effectiveness is unclear. Happily, several ongoing trials will shed light on this aspect as studies are ongoing in patients with tumor types such as prostate cancer, lung cancer and neuroendocrine tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT01716702, NCT01012401, NCT01849523) [43].

(18)

33 Our methodological quality assessment showed that the included studies could have been improved on several aspects in order to obtain a higher quality level. For example, in 14 of the 16 studies, study completers were not compared with drop-outs. This comparison may provide valuable information regarding which patients benefi t from the internet-based support programs. Twelve of the included studies were conducted in the US. Caution is warranted in generalizing these results to patients in other countries because of possible diff erences in health care systems and expectations of the role of health care professionals as noted by the aforementioned Cochrane review [16].

A few limitations could be noted regarding our review. The included studies made use of many diff erent outcomes. This heterogeneity hampers fi rm conclusions regarding eff ects on some less frequently studied outcomes. Also, some included studies had small sample sizes (e.g. [25,31]). The absence of signifi cant eff ects might be caused by a lack of power instead of true ineff ectiveness of the intervention.

Since cancer patients make widespread use of internet-based technologies, the challenge is to provide easy accessible tools that will be of benefi t for the individual patient. Internet-based technologies appear at a much greater pace than research can keep up with. A way to resolve this challenge is to examine the effi cacy of generic program components and/or underlying principles that are more timeless than the programs themselves as has been proposed previously [44]. Successful implementation into routine cancer care represents another challenge but is crucial to reach the full potential of internet-based support programs. A barrier for patients might be a lack of accessible internet-based support programs that match their supportive care needs and preferences. Patient preferences for internet-based support vary considerably as demonstrated by a recent study on use patterns of the online system ‘WebChoice’ [45]. It cannot be expected that a few accessible programs will cover the supportive care needs of all patients. We recommend that more eff ort should be put in the disclosure of available web-based support programs and tools. For example, a portal website could be constructed which contains all available supportive care programs/tools including apps, websites and social media for cancer patients. As such, patients are provided with a choice what type of supportive care programs/tools matches their need and preferences. Ultimately, patients will receive the supportive care they wish for and benefi t from the wealth of tools and programs delivered through the internet.

Confl ict of interest statement

The research was supported by a grant of the Dutch Pink Ribbon Foundation (PR0806). Acknowledgments

All authors drafted, read and approved the fi nal version of the manuscript.

(19)

34

References

Mitchell AJ. Pooled results from 38 analyses of the accuracy of distress thermometer and other ultra-short methods of detecting cancer-related mood disorders. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4670-81.

Zabora J, BrintzenhofeSzoc K, Curbow B, Hooker C, Piantadosi S. The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psycho-oncology 2001;10:19-28.

Pauwels EE, Charlier C, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Lechner L, Van Hoof E. Care needs after primary breast cancer treatment. Survivors’ associated sociodemographic and medical characteristics. Psycho-oncology 2013;22:125-32.

Leykin Y, Thekdi SM, Shumay DM, Munoz RF, Riba M, Dunn LB. Internet interventions for improving psychological well-being in psycho-oncology: review and recommendations. Psycho-oncology 2012;21:1016-25.

Stanton AL. What happens now? Psychosocial care for cancer survivors after medical treatment completion. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1215-20.

Holland JC, Alici Y. Management of distress in cancer patients. J Support Oncol 2010;8:4-12.

Davies NJ, Batehup L. Towards a personalised approach to aftercare: a review of cancer follow-up in the UK. J Cancer Surviv 2011;5:142-51.

van de Poll-Franse LV, van Eenbergen MC. Internet use by cancer survivors: current use and future wishes. Support Care Cancer 2008;16:1189-95.

Chou WY, Liu B, Post S, Hesse B. Health-related internet use among cancer survivors: data from the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2003-2008. J Cancer Surviv 2011;5:263-70.

Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, McTavish F, Pingree S, Chen WC, Volrathongchai K et al. Internet-based interactive support for cancer patients: are integrated systems better? J Commun 2008;58:238-57. Helft PR. A new age for cancer information seeking: are we better off now? J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:350-2. Ryhanen AM, Siekkinen M, Rankinen S, Korvenranta H, Leino-Kilpi H. The effects of internet or interactive computer-based patient education in the field of breast cancer: a systematic literature review. Patient Educ Couns 2010;79:5-13.

Samoocha D, Bruinvels DJ, Elbers NA, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ. Effectiveness of web-based interventions on patient empowerment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2010;12:e23. DuBenske LL, Gustafson DH, Shaw BR, Cleary JF. Web-based cancer communication and decision making systems: connecting patients, caregivers, and clinicians for improved health outcomes. Med Decis Making 2010;30:732-44.

Boer H, Nuver J, Lefrandt JD, Duijzer AW, Bunskoek S, Berendsen AJ et al. Easy navigating through the forest of survivorship care. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:61-2.

Murray E, Burns J, See TS, Lai R, Nazareth I. Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;4:CD004274.

Kuijpers W, Groen WG, Aaronson NK, van Harten WH. A systematic review of web-based interventions for patient empowerment and physical activity in chronic diseases: relevance for cancer survivors. J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e37.

Grimsbo GH, Engelsrud GH, Ruland CM, Finset A. Cancer patients’ experiences of using an Interactive Health Communication Application (IHCA). Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 2012;7:15511.

Wiljer D, Urowitz S, Barbera L, Chivers ML, Quartey NK, Ferguson SE et al. A qualitative study of an internet-based support group for women with sexual distress due to gynecologic cancer. J Cancer Educ 2011;26:451-8.

Hong Y, Pena-Purcell NC, Ory MG. Outcomes of online support and resources for cancer survivors: a systematic literature review. Patient Educ Couns 2012;86:288-96.

Chapter 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

(20)

35 OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. “The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence”. Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 (visited August 14 2014)

van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2323-30. Baker TB, Hawkins R, Pingree S, Roberts LJ, McDowell HE, Shaw BR et al. Optimizing eHealth breast cancer interventions: which types of eHealth services are eff ective? Transl Behav Med 2011;1:134-45.

Schover LR, Canada AL, Yuan Y, Sui D, Neese L, Jenkins R et al. A randomized trial of internet-based versus traditional sexual counseling for couples after localized prostate cancer treatment. Cancer 2012;118:500-9. Duff ecy J, Sanford S, Wagner L, Begale M, Nawacki E, Mohr DC. Project onward: an innovative e-health intervention for cancer survivors. Psycho-oncology 2013;22:947-51.

Ritterband LM, Bailey ET, Thorndike FP, Lord HR, Farrell-Carnahan L, Baum LD. Initial evaluation of an Internet intervention to improve the sleep of cancer survivors with insomnia. Psycho-oncology 2012;21:695-705.

Ruland CM, Andersen T, Jeneson A, Moore S, Grimsbo GH, Borosund E et al. Eff ects of an internet support system to assist cancer patients in reducing symptom distress: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs 2013;36:6-17.

Yun YH, Lee KS, Kim YW, Park SY, Lee ES, Noh DY et al. Web-based tailored education program for disease-free cancer survivors with cancer-related fatigue: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1296-303.

Osei DK, Lee JW, Modest NN, Pothier PK. Eff ects of an online support group for prostate cancer survivors: a randomized trial. Urol Nurs 2013;33:123-33.

van den Brink JL, Moorman PW, de Boer MF, Hop WC, Pruyn JF, Verwoerd CD et al. Impact on quality of life of a telemedicine system supporting head and neck cancer patients: a controlled trial during the postoperative period at home. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:198-205.

Classen CC, Chivers ML, Urowitz S, Barbera L, Wiljer D, O’Rinn S et al. Psychosexual distress in women with gynecologic cancer: a feasibility study of an online support group. Psycho-oncology 2013;22:930-5. Owen JE, Klapow JC, Roth DL, Shuster JL,Jr, Bellis J, Meredith R et al. Randomized pilot of a self-guided internet coping group for women with early-stage breast cancer. Ann Behav Med 2005;30:54-64. Winzelberg AJ, Classen C, Alpers GW, Roberts H, Koopman C, Adams RE et al. Evaluation of an internet support group for women with primary breast cancer. Cancer 2003;97:1164-73.

Changrani J, Lieberman M, Golant M, Rios P, Damman J, Gany F. Online cancer support groups: Experiences with underserved immigrant Latinos. Primary Psychiatry 2008;15:55-62.

Klemm P. Eff ects of online support group format (moderated vs peer-led) on depressive symptoms and extent of participation in women with breast cancer. Comput Inform Nurs 2012;30:9-18.

Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, Pingree S, McTavish F, Arora NK, Mendenhall J et al. Eff ect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:435-45.

Gustafson DH, McTavish FM, Stengle W, Ballard D, Hawkins R, Shaw BR et al. Use and impact of eHealth system by low-income women with breast cancer. J Health Commun 2005;10 Suppl 1:195-218.

Knowles SR, Mikocka-Walus A. Utilization and effi cacy of internet-based eHealth technology in gastroenterology: a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014;49:387-408.

Jorgensen ML, Young JM, Harrison JD, Solomon MJ. Unmet supportive care needs in colorectal cancer: diff erences by age. Support Care Cancer 2012;20:1275-81.

Merckaert I, Libert Y, Messin S, Milani M, Slachmuylder JL, Razavi D. Cancer patients’ desire for psychological support: prevalence and implications for screening patients’ psychological needs. Psycho-oncology 2010;19:141-9.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

2

(21)

36

van Scheppingen C, Schroevers MJ, Smink A, van der Linden YM, Mul VE, Langendijk JA et al. Does screening for distress efficiently uncover meetable unmet needs in cancer patients? Psycho-oncology 2011;20:655-63.

ClinicalTrials.gov. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home. (visited August 14 2014)

Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse SF et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2011, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2011/, based on November 2013 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2014. (visited August 14 2014) Baker TB, Gustafson DH, Shah D. How can research keep up with eHealth? Ten strategies for increasing the timeliness and usefulness of eHealth research. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e36.

Ruland CM, Maffei RM, Borosund E, Krahn A, Andersen T, Grimsbo GH. Evaluation of different features of an eHealth application for personalized illness management support: cancer patients’ use and appraisal of usefulness. Int J Med Inform 2013;82:593-603.

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Chapter 2

(22)

37 Appendix 1. Full search databases

MEDLINE (PubMed)

(((Neoplasms[MESH] OR Carcinoma[Mesh]) OR (cancer*[TIAB] OR neoplasm*[TIAB] OR carcinoma*[TIAB] OR oncology[TIAB])) AND ((Internet[Mesh] OR web*[TIAB] OR onli-ne*[TIAB] OR internet*[TIAB]) OR (e-health*[TIAB] OR eHealth*[TIAB]) OR (telemedici-ne[MESH:noexp])) AND ((“Patient Education as Topic”[Mesh]) OR (“Social Support”[Me-sh]) OR (psychoeducat*[tiab]) OR (“rehabilitation”[MESH]) OR (support group*[tiab]) OR (support system*[tiab])))

CINAHL

(((MH “Neoplasms+”) OR (MH “Oncology+”) OR TI (“cancer*” OR “neoplasm*” OR “carcino-ma*” OR “oncology”) OR AB (“cancer*” OR “neoplasm*” OR “carcino“carcino-ma*” OR “oncology”)) AND ((MH Internet+ OR MH telehealth+) OR TI (“internet*” OR “web*” OR “online*” OR “e-health*” OR “eHealth*”) OR AB (“internet*” OR “web*” OR “online*” OR “e- health*” OR “eHealth*”)) AND ((MH “Patient education”) OR (MH “Support, psychosocial”) OR (MH “Psy-choeducation”) OR (MH “Rehabilitation, Cancer”) OR (TI “support group*”) OR (TI “support system*”) OR (AB “support group*”) OR (AB “support system*”)))

PsychINFO

(((DE “Neoplasms” ) OR (DE “Benign Neoplasms”) OR (DE “Breast Neoplasms”) OR (DE “En-docrine Neoplasms”) OR (DE “Nervous System Neoplasms”) OR (DE “Terminal

Cancer”) OR TI (“cancer*” OR “neoplasm*” OR “carcinoma*” OR “oncology”) OR AB (“cancer*” OR “neoplasm*” OR “carcinoma*” OR “oncology”)) AND ((DE “Internet”) OR (DE “Telemedi-cine”) OR TI (“internet*” OR “web*” OR “online*” OR “e-health*” OR “eHealth*”) OR AB (“inter-net*” OR “web*” OR “online*” OR “e-health*” OR “eHealth*”)) AND ((DE “Client Education”) OR (DE “Support Groups”) OR (DE “Psychoeducation”) OR (DE “Online Therapy”) OR (DE “Disease Management”) OR (DE “Rehabilitation”) OR (DE “Cognitive Rehabilitation”) OR (DE “Neuropsychological Rehabilitation”) OR (DE “Neurorehabilitation”) OR (DE “Occupa-tional Therapy”) OR (DE “Physical Therapy”) OR (DE “Psychosocial Rehabilitation”) OR TI (“rehab*” OR “support system*” OR “support group*” OR “patient educat*”) OR AB (“rehab*” OR “support system*” OR “support group*” OR “patient educat*”)))

(23)