Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control interventions: new technology, same methods and designs?

  • systematic review
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

There has been a recent surge of eHealth programs in cancer and other content areas, but few reviews have focused on the methodologies and designs employed in these studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies on eHealth interventions on cancer prevention and control published between 2001 and 2010 applying the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria and external validity components from the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. We identified 113 studies that focused on cancer prevention and control of eHealth interventions. Most studies fell midway along the explanatory/pragmatic trial continuum, but few reported on various practical feasibility criteria for translation. Despite vast interest in cancer eHealth and the applied nature of this field, few studies considered key external validity issues. There is a need for use of alternative pragmatic study designs and transparent reporting of external validity components to produce more rapid and generalizable results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eheman C et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2008, featuring cancers associated with excess weight and lack of sufficient physical activity. Cancer. 2012; 118(9): 2338-66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chu, K.C., B.A. Miller, and S.A. Springfield, Measures of racial/ethnic health disparities in cancer mortality rates and the influence of socioeconomic status. J Natl Med Assoc, 2007. 99(10): p. 1092–100, 1102–4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Saldana-Ruiz, N., et al., Fundamental causes of colorectal cancer mortality in the United States: understanding the importance of socioeconomic status in creating inequality in mortality. Am J Public Health, 2012.

  4. Noar SM, H.N., eHealth Applications: Promising Strategies for Behavior Change, Routledge, NY, 2012.

  5. Bennett GG, Glasgow RE. The delivery of public health interventions via the internet: actualizing their potential. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009; 30: 273-92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Strecher V. Internet methods for delivering behavioral and health-related interventions (eHealth). Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2007; 3: 53-76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wantland DJ et al. The effectiveness of web-based vs. non-web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(4): e40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Murray E et al. Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; 4: CD004274.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Glasgow RE. eHealth evaluation and dissemination research. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32(5 Suppl): S119-26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eysenbach G. CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of web-based and mobile health interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(4): e126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zwarenstein M et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008; 337: a2390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thorpe KE et al. A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(5): 464-75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Riddle DL et al. The pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) instrument was useful for refining a randomized trial design: experiences from an investigative team. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(11): 1271-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Selby P et al. How pragmatic or explanatory is the randomized, controlled trial? The application and enhancement of the PRECIS tool to the evaluation of a smoking cessation trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Glasgow RE et al. Applying the PRECIS criteria to describe three effectiveness trials of weight loss in obese patients with comorbid conditions. Health Serv Res. 2012; 47(3 Pt 1): 1051-67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koppenaal T et al. Pragmatic vs. explanatory: an adaptation of the PRECIS tool helps to judge the applicability of systematic reviews for daily practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(10): 1095-101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eng TR. The eHealth Landscape: A Terrain Map of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies in Health and Health Care. Princeton: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rabin BA, G.R., Dissemination of interactive health communication programs, in Interactive Health Communication Technologies: Promising Strategies for Health Behavior Change: Routledge, NY, 2012.

  19. Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Ioannidis JP. The emergence of translational epidemiology: from scientific discovery to population health impact. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(5): 517-24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hiatt RA, Rimer BK. A new strategy for cancer control research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999; 8(11): 957-64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89(9): 1322-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pagliari C. Design and evaluation in eHealth: challenges and implications for an interdisciplinary field. J Med Internet Res. 2007; 9(2): e15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Glasgow RE, Chambers D. Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid and relevant science. Clin Transl Sci. 2012; 5(1): 48-55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Glasgow RE et al. Disseminating effective cancer screening interventions. Cancer. 2004; 101(5 Suppl): 1239-50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bennett, G., eHealth and D&I research: what next?, in Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. July 9–13, 2012.

  26. Greene SM, Reid RJ, Larson EB. Implementing the learning health system: from concept to action. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157(3):207-10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Collins LM, Murphy SA, Strecher V. The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): new methods for more potent eHealth interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32(5 Suppl): S112-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Riley WT et al. Health behavior models in the age of mobile interventions: are our theories up to the task? Transl Behav Med. 2011; 1(1): 53-71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. West JH et al. There's an app for that: content analysis of paid health and fitness apps. J Med Internet Res. 2012; 14(3): e72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abroms LC et al. iPhone apps for smoking cessation: a content analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40(3): 279-85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this manuscript was partially funded through the National Cancer Institute Centers of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research (award number P20CA137219). This project has been funded, in whole or in part, with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, under contract no. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does it mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations implying endorsement by the US government. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Cancer Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Michael A Sanchez MPH, CHES, M Khair Elzarrad PhD, MPH & Russell E Glasgow PhD

  2. CRN Cancer Communication Research Center, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA

    Borsika A Rabin MPH, PhD & Michelle Henton MA

  3. Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States, Rockville, MD, USA

    Bridget Gaglio PhD, MPH

  4. Food and Drug Administration, Interagency Oncology Task Force (IOTF) Fellowship-Cancer Prevention Fellow, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    M Khair Elzarrad PhD, MPH

  5. Clinical Research Directorate/CMRP, SAIC-Frederick, Inc., National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD, USA

    Peyton Purcell MPH, CPH

Authors
  1. Michael A Sanchez MPH, CHES
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Borsika A Rabin MPH, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bridget Gaglio PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michelle Henton MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M Khair Elzarrad PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peyton Purcell MPH, CPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Russell E Glasgow PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A Sanchez MPH, CHES.

Additional information

Implications

Practice: Practitioners should look for and expect research reports to provide transparent information to make it possible to determine whether an eHealth program is possible to implement in their setting.

Policy: eHealth journals and grant funding organizations should encourage more transparent reporting on issues related to translation and external validity.

Research: Researchers should more consistently report on PRECIS criteria and other factors related to translation.

About this article

Cite this article

Sanchez, M.A., Rabin, B.A., Gaglio, B. et al. A systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control interventions: new technology, same methods and designs?. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 3, 392–401 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0224-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0224-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation