The influence of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions on disability: a systematic review

Rachelle Brick, Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. rachelle.brick@nih.gov.
Lynne Padgett, VA Central Office, Health Services Research and Development, 1100 1st St NE, Suite 6, Washington, DC, 20002, USA.
Jennifer Jones, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Sr. PMB-B-045, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Kelley Covington Wood, ReVital Cancer Rehabilitation, Select Medical, 4714 Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, PA, 17055, USA.
Mackenzi Pergolotti, ReVital Cancer Rehabilitation, Select Medical, 4714 Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, PA, 17055, USA.
Timothy F. Marshall, Ivy Rehab Network, 1311 Mamaroneck Ave, Suite 140, White Plains, NY, 10605, USA.
Grace Campbell, Duquesne University School of Nursing, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15282, USA.
Rachel Eilers, Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Bridgeside Point I, 100 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, USA.
Sareh Keshavarzi, Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, 610 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ann Marie Flores, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Julie K. Silver, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Aneesha Virani, Department of Rehabilitation Services, Northside Hospital, 1000 Johnson Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA, 30342, USA.
Alicia A. Livinski, National Institutes of Health Library, Office of Research Services, OD, NIH, MSC 1150, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Mohammed Faizan Ahmed, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Sr. PMB-B-045, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Tiffany Kendig, ReVital Cancer Rehabilitation, Select Medical, 4714 Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, PA, 17055, USA.
Bismah Khalid, Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1VT, Canada.
Jeremy Barnett, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2300 I St. NW, Washington, DC, 20052, USA.
Anita Borhani, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Sr. PMB-B-045, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Graysen Bernard, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Sr. PMB-B-045, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Kathleen Doyle Lyons, Department of Occupational Therapy, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown Navy Yard, Building 79/96, 79 13th Street, Boston, MA, 02129, USA.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

2-26-2022

Journal

Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice

DOI

10.1007/s11764-022-01181-4

Keywords

Cancer rehabilitation; Disability; Function; Intervention; Neoplasm; Telehealth

Abstract

PURPOSE: To characterize delivery features and explore effectiveness of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions that address disability in adult cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases (CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library: Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, National Health Service's Health Technology Assessment, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) was conducted in December 2019 and updated in April 2021. RESULTS: Searches identified 3,499 unique studies. Sixty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. There were 81 unique interventions across included studies. Interventions were primarily delivered post-treatment and lasted an average of 16.5 weeks (SD = 13.1). They were most frequently delivered using telephone calls (59%), administered delivered by nursing professionals (35%), and delivered in a one-on-one format (88%). Risk of bias of included studies was primarily moderate to high. Included studies captured 55 measures of disability. Only 54% of reported outcomes had data that allowed calculation of effect sizes ranging -3.58 to 15.66. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses suggest small effects of telehealth-based cancer interventions on disability, though the heterogeneity seen in the measurement of disability makes it hard to draw firm conclusions. Further research using more diverse samples, common measures of disability, and pragmatic study designs is needed to advance telehealth in cancer rehabilitation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions have the potential to increase access to care designed to reduce disability across the cancer care continuum.

Department

School of Medicine and Health Sciences Student Works

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS