eHealth Interventions for Dutch Cancer Care: Systematic Review Using the Triple Aim Lens

Abstract

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 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.

Assessing patients’ needs in the follow-up after treatment for colorectal cancer—a mixed-method study

“…A systematic review describing unmet needs of CRC survivors came to a parallel conclusion, emphasising the requirement for information regarding symptom expectations and management, as well as the continuous support throughout the follow-up [ 26 ]. A recent study conducted three focus groups with the primary objectives to gather insights from CRC survivors to improve care, and explore the potential of e-health technology [ 27 ]. The themes from these focus groups align with our own findings, highlighting the pressing need for information on symptom expectations and management, as well as sustained support during follow-up.…”

Blended care intervention for cancer aftercare in general practice centres: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

“…For cancer survivors in particular, it has been found that while they use the internet to search for health information, their use of eHealth self-help programmes is not common (Van Uden-Kraan et al, 2019). One reason for this may be that many eHealth interventions are not implemented in everyday practice (Van Deursen et al, 2022). To improve the use of eHealth, the Dutch eHealth Monitor suggests that healthcare providers play an important role in informing patients about eHealth self-help programmes and that healthcare work ows should be designed to facilitate the use of eHealth through blended care (RIVM et al, 2022b).…”

Understanding Trust Determinants in a Live Chat Service on Familial Cancer: Qualitative Triangulation Study With Focus Groups and Interviews in Germany

“…Although several studies have shown that generally women search more often for health information on the internet [ 57 , 58 ], the studies under review did not provide distinct insights into the intersections of other sociodemographic characteristics in relation to gender and trust in web-based health information [ 56 ]. In addition, other reviews and studies have provided evidence that experience with a certain health condition (eg, cancer [ 4 ]) as well as digital literacy and familiarity in using and navigating web-based tools [ 15 , 59 , 60 ] were associated with more frequent web-based health information seeking and judgmental skills regarding the trustworthiness of different sources.…”