BackgroundMobile phones have become nearly ubiquitous, offering a promising means to deliver health interventions. However, little is known about smartphone applications (apps) for cancer.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to characterize the purpose and content of cancer-focused smartphone apps available for use by the general public and the evidence on their utility or effectiveness.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the official application stores for the four major smartphone platforms: iPhone, Android, Nokia, and BlackBerry. Apps were included in the review if they were focused on cancer and available for use by the general public. This was complemented by a systematic review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify evaluations of cancer-related smartphone apps.ResultsA total of 295 apps from the smartphone app stores met the inclusion criteria. The majority of apps targeted breast cancer (46.8%, 138/295) or cancer in general (28.5%, 84/295). The reported app purpose was predominantly to raise awareness about cancer (32.2%, 95/295) or to provide educational information about cancer (26.4%, 78/295), followed by apps to support fundraising efforts (12.9%, 38/295), assist in early detection (11.5%, 34/295), promote a charitable organization (10.2%, 30/295), support disease management (3.7%, 11/295), cancer prevention (2.0%, 6/295), or social support (1.0%, 3/295). The majority of the apps did not describe their organizational affiliation (64.1%, 189/295). Apps affiliated with non-profit organizations were more likely to be free of cost (χ2 1=16.3, P<.001) and have a fundraising or awareness purpose (χ2 2=13.3, P=.001). The review of the health literature yielded 594 articles, none of which reported an evaluation of a cancer-focused smartphone application.ConclusionsThere are hundreds of cancer-focused apps with the potential to enhance efforts to promote behavior change, to monitor a host of symptoms and physiological indicators of disease, and to provide real-time supportive interventions, conveniently and at low cost. However, there is a lack of evidence on their utility, effectiveness, and safety. Future efforts should focus on improving and consolidating the evidence base into a whitelist for public consumption.

At least one in four testicular cancer survivors has unmet needs related to financial support, body image, stress, being a cancer survivor, and fear of recurrence. A web-based resource may be a useful strategy to consider given the high prevalence of social media use in this sample and their desire for online support. Efforts are needed to raise awareness about online peer support resources and to overcome barriers to their use.

Internet-based support groups for cancer patients have been studied extensively; very few have focused on gynecologic cancer. We pilot-tested a web-based support group for gynecologic cancer patients and assessed women's perceptions of the intervention. Twenty-seven gynecologic cancer patients were randomized to an immediate intervention or a waitlist control group. Women participated in a 12-week, web-based support group focusing on sexuality-related topics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of the intervention. Women reported benefits to participating in the intervention, including receiving support from group members and moderators, increased emotional well-being, improved feelings of body image and sexuality, and comfort in discussing sexuality online. Web-based support groups are both feasible and accepted by gynecologic cancer patients with psychosexual distress. The online format provided women with easy access to the support group and anonymity in discussing psychosexual concerns. Women with gynecologic cancer may benefit from participating in online support groups which provide an environment of relative anonymity to discuss psychosexual concerns.

ObjectivesWe studied the impact of a Housing First (HF) intervention on housing, contact with the justice system, healthcare usage and health outcomes among At Home/Chez Soi randomised trial participants in Toronto, a city with an extensive service network for social and health services for individuals who are experiencing homelessness and mental illness.MethodsParticipants identified as high needs were randomised to receive either the intervention which provided them with housing and supports by an assertive community treatment team (HF+ACT) or treatment as usual (TAU). Participants (N=197) had in-person interviews every 3 months for 2 years.ResultsThe HF+ACT group spent more time stably housed compared to the TAU group with the mean difference between the groups of 45.8% (95% CI 37.1% to 54.4%, p<0.0001). Accounting for baseline differences, HF+ACT group showed significant improvements over TAU group for community functioning, selected quality-of-life subscales and arrests at some time points during follow-up. No differences between HF+ACT and TAU groups over the follow-up were observed for health service usage, community integration and substance use.ConclusionsHF for individuals with high levels of need increased housing stability and selected health and justice outcomes over 2 years in a city with many social and health services.Trial registration numberISRCTN42520374.