Review A systematic review of types and efficacy of online interventions for cancer patients Heidi McAlpine a,b , Lynette Joubert c , Fernando Martin-Sanchez a , Mark Merolli a , Katharine J. Drummond b,d, * a Health and Biomedical Informatics Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia b Department of Neurosurgery, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia c Department of Social Work, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia d Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 2. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 2.1. Identification and selection criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 2.2. Categorization of interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 2.3. Categorization of outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 3.1. Identification and selection criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 3.2. Feasibility and acceptability studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 3.3. Cancer population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 3.4. Intervention type and outcome measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 3.5. Online platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 3.6. Meta-analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 3.7. Multidimensional interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 Patient Education and Counseling 98 (2015) 283–295 A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 28 May 2014 Received in revised form 26 September 2014 Accepted 8 November 2014 Keywords: Cancer Oncology Online Internet Social media Quality of life A B S T R A C T Objective: This review examines the evidence-based literature surrounding the use of online resources for adult cancer patients. The focus is online resources that connect patients with their healthcare clinician and with supportive and educational resources, their efficacy and the outcome measures used to assess them. Methods: The following databases were systematically searched for relevant literature: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Inspec and Computers and Applied Science. Included were studies conducted in an outpatient setting, and reporting a measurable, clinically relevant outcome. Fourteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Results: The efficacy of online interventions was varied, with some demonstrating positive effects on quality of life and related measures, and two demonstrating poorer outcomes for intervention participants. The majority of interventions reported mixed results. Included interventions were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. Conclusions: The overall benefit of online interventions for cancer patients is unclear. Although there is a plethora of interventions reported without analysis, current interventions demonstrate mixed efficacy of limited duration when rigorously evaluated. Practice implications: The efficacy of on-line interventions for cancer patients is unclear. All on-line interventions should be developed using the available evidence-base and rigorously evaluated to expand our understanding of this area. Crown Copyright ß 2014 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author at: Department of Neurosurgery, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne 3010, Australia. Tel.: +61 422286812; fax: +61 93428231. E-mail addresses: Heidi.McAlpine@mh.org.au (H. McAlpine), kate.drummond@mh.org.au (K.J. Drummond). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Patient Education and Counseling jo ur n al h o mep ag e: w ww .elsevier .co m /loc ate/p ated u co u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.11.002 0738-3991/Crown Copyright ß 2014 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.