Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Jul 30;23(7):e26759.
doi: 10.2196/26759.

Social Media and mHealth Technology for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Arlinda Ruco  1   2 , Fahima Dossa  3 , Jill Tinmouth  1   4   5 , Diego Llovet  1   4 , Jenna Jacobson  1   6 , Teruko Kishibe  7 , Nancy Baxter  1   2   8
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Social Media and mHealth Technology for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Arlinda Ruco et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening.

Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model.

Results: We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types.

Conclusions: Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions.

Trial registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615.

International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411.

Keywords: cancer screening; digital health; mHealth; mass screening; mobile phone; social media.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram outlining the steps involved in identifying screened and included studies in the meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias assessment for the included randomized controlled trials (n=30) created using the Robvis tool.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias assessment for the included pre- and postintervention studies (n=9).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot of publication bias for the randomized controlled trials reporting on the primary outcome. OR: odds ratio.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot for the randomized controlled trials reporting on the primary outcome of cancer screening participation categorized by type of cancer (n=30).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome of interest of cancer screening participation without inclusion of randomized controlled trials with a high risk of bias (n=22).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot for the reminder interventions reporting on the primary outcome of cancer screening participation (n=12).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot for the mixed interventions reporting on the primary outcome of cancer screening participation (n=17).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization . Global Difusion of eHealth: Making Universal Health Coverage Achievable. Report of the Third Global Survey on eHealth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. pp. 1–160.
    1. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(4):e85. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1933. http://www.jmir.org/2013/4/e85/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maher CA, Lewis LK, Ferrar K, Marshall S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vandelanotte C. Are health behavior change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e40. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2952. http://www.jmir.org/2014/2/e40/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Korda H, Itani Z. Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promot Pract. 2013 Jan;14(1):15–23. doi: 10.1177/1524839911405850. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bull SS, Levine DK, Black SR, Schmiege SJ, Santelli J. Social media-delivered sexual health intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Nov;43(5):467–74. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.07.022. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23079168 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types