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
Review
. 2023 Mar 31;15(7):2090.
doi: 10.3390/cancers15072090.

Psychosocial Impact of Virtual Cancer Care through Technology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Caterina Caminiti  1 , Maria Antonietta Annunziata  2 , Paola Di Giulio  3 , Luciano Isa  4 , Paola Mosconi  5 , Maria Giulia Nanni  6 , Michela Piredda  7 , Claudio Verusio  8 , Francesca Diodati  1 , Giuseppe Maglietta  1 , Rodolfo Passalacqua  9
Affiliations
Review

Psychosocial Impact of Virtual Cancer Care through Technology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Caterina Caminiti et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

This meta-analysis of RCTs aimed to determine whether replacing face-to-face hospital care with telemedicine deteriorates psychosocial outcomes of adult cancer patients, in terms of quality of life (QoL), anxiety, distress, and depression. RCTs on interventions aimed at improving patient psychosocial outcomes were excluded. MEDLINE, EmBASE, and PsycInfo were searched on 13 May 2022 without language or date restrictions. In total, 1400 records were identified and 8 RCTs included (4434 subjects). Study methodological quality was moderate. Statistically significant improvements were observed in favor of the intervention for QoL (SMD = 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.43, p = 0.04), anxiety (SMD = -0.17, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.04, p < 0.01), and global distress (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.25, p < 0.01). A meta-analysis on depression could not be performed. In subgroup analyses, the intervention appeared to be more beneficial for patients receiving active treatment vs. follow-up, for "other cancer types" vs. breast cancer, and for "other modes of administration" vs. telephone. Given the many potential advantages of being assisted at home, telemedicine appears to be a viable option in oncology. However, more research is necessary to determine the types of patients who may benefit the most from these alternative care modalities.

Keywords: anxiety; cancer; psychological distress; psychosocial health; quality of life; telemedicine; virtual care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of comparison: telehealth intervention versus control; outcome: standardized mean difference for the change from baseline in QoL [52,53,54,55,56].
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of comparison: telehealth intervention versus control; outcome: standardized mean difference for the change from baseline in anxiety [50,51,52,53,54,56,57].
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of comparison: telehealth intervention versus control; outcome: standardized mean difference for the change from baseline in distress [54,55].
Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. Flow diagram of identified studies, included and excluded [31].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Singh S., Fletcher G.G., Yao X., Sussman J. Virtual Care in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review. Curr. Oncol. 2021;28:3488–3506. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28050301. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Duffy S., Lee T.H. In-Person Health Care as Option B. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;378:104–106. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1710735. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cinar P., Kubal T., Freifeld A., Mishra A., Shulman L., Bachman J., Fonseca R., Uronis H., Klemanski D., Slusser K., et al. Safety at the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic: How to Keep Our Oncology Patients and Healthcare Workers Safe. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2020;18:504–509. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bakitas M., Cheville A.L., Mulvey T.M., Peppercorn J., Watts K., Dionne-Odom J.N. Telehealth Strategies to Support Patients and Families Across the Cancer Trajectory. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book. 2021;41:413–422. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_320979. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liang W., Guan W., Chen R., Wang W., Li J., Xu K., Li C., Ai Q., Lu W., Liang H., et al. Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: A nationwide analysis in China. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:335–337. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30096-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources