Background: Globally, the burden of cancer on population health is growing. Recent trends such as increasing survival rates have resulted in a need to adapt cancer care to ensure a good care... Show moreBackground: Globally, the burden of cancer on population health is growing. Recent trends such as increasing survival rates have resulted in a need to adapt cancer care to ensure a good care experience and manageable expenditures. eHealth is a promising way to increase the quality of cancer care and support patients and survivors. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was 2-fold. First, we aimed to provide an overview of eHealth interventions and their characteristics for Dutch patients with and survivors of cancer. Second, we aimed to provide an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the impact of eHealth interventions in cancer care on population health, quality of care, and per capita costs (the Triple Aim domains). Methods: The electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Ovid PsycINFO were searched using 3 key search themes: eHealth interventions, cancer care, and the Netherlands. The identified interventions were classified according to predetermined criteria describing the intervention characteristics (eg, type, function, and target population). Their impact was subsequently examined using the Triple Aim framework. Results: A total of 38 interventions were identified. Most of these were web portals or web applications functioning to inform and self-manage, and target psychosocial factors or problems. Few interventions have been tailored to age, disease severity, or gender. The results of this study indicate that eHealth interventions could positively affect sleep quality, fatigue, and physical activity of patients with and survivors of cancer. Inconclusive results were found regarding daily functioning and quality of life, psychological complaints, and psychological adjustment to the disease. Conclusions: eHealth can improve outcomes in the Triple Aim domains, particularly in the population health and quality of care domains. Cancer-related pain and common symptoms of active treatment were not targeted in the included interventions and should receive more attention. Further research is needed to fully understand the impact of eHealth interventions in cancer care on participation, accessibility, and costs. The latter can be examined in economic evaluations by comparing eHealth interventions with care as usual. (JMIR Cancer 2022;8(2):e37093) doi: 10.2196/37093 Show less
Background: The number of people with chronic diseases and the subsequent pressure on health care is increasing. eHealth technology for diagnostic testing can contribute to more efficient health... Show moreBackground: The number of people with chronic diseases and the subsequent pressure on health care is increasing. eHealth technology for diagnostic testing can contribute to more efficient health care and lower workload.Objective: This systematic review examines the available methods for direct web-based access for patients to diagnostic testing and results in the absence of a health care professional in primary care.Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, Emcare, and Academic Search Premier databases in August 2019 and updated in July 2021. The included studies focused on direct patient access to web-based triage leading to diagnostic testing, self-sampling or testing, or web-based communication of test results. A total of 45 studies were included. The quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Results: Most studies had a quantitative descriptive design and discussed a combination of services. Diagnostic test services mainly focused on sexually transmitted infections. Overall, the use was high for web-based triage (3046/5000, >50%, who used a triage booked a test), for self-sampling or self-testing kits (83%), and the result service (85%). The acceptability of the test services was high, with 81% preferring home-based testing over clinic-based testing. There was a high rate of follow-up testing or treatment after a positive test (93%).Conclusions: The results show that direct access to testing and result services had high use rates, was positively evaluated, and led to high rates of follow-up treatment. More research on cost-effectiveness is needed to determine the potential for other diseases. Direct access to diagnostic testing can lower the threshold for testing in users, potentially increase efficiency, and lower the workload in primary care. Show less
Background: eHealth has the potential to improve outcomes such as physical activity or balance in older adults receiving geriatric rehabilitation. However, several challenges such as scarce... Show moreBackground: eHealth has the potential to improve outcomes such as physical activity or balance in older adults receiving geriatric rehabilitation. However, several challenges such as scarce evidence on effectiveness, feasibility, and usability hinder the successful implementation of eHealth in geriatric rehabilitation.Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to assess evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and usability of eHealth interventions in older adults in geriatric rehabilitation.Methods: We searched 7 databases for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, qualitative research, and mixed methods studies that applied eHealth interventions during geriatric rehabilitation. Included studies investigated a combination of effectiveness, usability, and feasibility of eHealth in older patients who received geriatric rehabilitation, with a mean age of >= 70 years. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a narrative synthesis was conducted using a harvest plot.Results: In total, 40 studies were selected, with clinical heterogeneity across studies. Of 40 studies, 15 studies (38%) found eHealth was at least as effective as non-eHealth interventions (56% of the 27 studies with a control group), 11 studies (41%) found eHealth interventions were more effective than non-eHealth interventions, and 1 study (4%) reported beneficial outcomes in favor of the non-eHealth interventions. Of 17 studies, 16 (94%) concluded that eHealth was feasible. However, high exclusion rates were reported in 7 studies of 40 (18%). Of 40 studies, 4 (10%) included outcomes related to usability and indicated that there were certain aging-related barriers to cognitive ability, physical ability, or perception, which led to difficulties in using eHealth.Conclusions: eHealth can potentially improve rehabilitation outcomes for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation. Simple eHealth interventions were more likely to be feasible for older patients receiving geriatric rehabilitation, especially, in combination with another non-eHealth intervention. However, a lack of evidence on usability might hamper the implementation of eHealth. eHealth applications in geriatric rehabilitation show promise, but more research is required, including research with a focus on usability and participation. Show less
