BackgroundCarers looking after someone with cancer often experience negative impacts on their own health. M-health interventions have been designed to provide information and support to patients and their carers. However, the effectiveness of technology-based interventions for carers is less well understood. The objectives were to assess the feasibility, useability and acceptability of technology-based interventions among carers of people living with cancer.MethodsA systematic search of the CINAHL, MEDLINE and PSYCINFO databases was performed using terms related to web-based interventions and smartphone applications, carers and cancer. Studies were included if a randomised controlled trial or pilot study was conducted, focused on adult carers looking after another adult with cancer and were published between January 2007-June 2017. Articles were excluded if they reported qualitative results only or were evaluating existing websites and applications. Feasibility was measured by attrition, recruitment rates and frequency of intervention use; useability was measured by the ease of intervention use and the role of features to minimise errors in use. Acceptability was measured by carers’ perception of the appropriateness of the content and their ability to incorporate the intervention into their daily routines.ResultsOf the 729 articles, six articles met the inclusion criteria. Attrition ranged from 14% - 77%, recruitment rates from 20% - 66% and intervention useability varied across studies. Half of the studies implemented measures to improve useability. Overall, carers rated the content of the interventions as appropriate and reported improved knowledge and communication. Acceptability was further demonstrated as carers preferred the flexibility available with web-based interventions.ConclusionsTechnology-based interventions are suitable for use among carers of people with cancer. Further research is required to fully assess the impact of technology as an information and support mechanism for carers.

No abstract

Objective The study sought to review the different assessment items that have been used within existing health app evaluation frameworks aimed at individual, clinician, or organizational users, and to analyze the scoring and evaluation methods used in these frameworks. Materials and Methods We searched multiple bibliographic databases and conducted backward searches of reference lists, using search terms that were synonyms of “health apps,” “evaluation,” and “frameworks.” The review covered publications from 2011 to April 2020. Studies on health app evaluation frameworks and studies that elaborated on the scaling and scoring mechanisms applied in such frameworks were included. Results Ten common domains were identified across general health app evaluation frameworks. A list of 430 assessment criteria was compiled across 97 identified studies. The most frequently used scaling mechanism was a 5-point Likert scale. Most studies have adopted summary statistics to generate the total scoring of each app, and the most popular approach taken was the calculation of mean or average scores. Other frameworks did not use any scaling or scoring mechanism and adopted criteria-based, pictorial, or descriptive approaches, or “threshold” filter. Discussion There is wide variance in the approaches to evaluating health apps within published frameworks, and this variance leads to ongoing uncertainty in how to evaluate health apps. Conclusions A new evaluation framework is needed that can integrate the full range of evaluative criteria within one structure, and provide summative guidance on health app rating, to support individual app users, clinicians, and health organizations in choosing or recommending the best health app.

Background: Smartphone technology represents an opportunity to deliver practical solutions for people affected by cancer at a scale that was previously unimaginable, such as information, appointment monitoring, and improved access to cancer support services. This study aimed to determine whether a smartphone application (app) reduced the unmet needs among people newly diagnosed with cancer. Methods: A single blind, multisite randomized controlled trial to determine the impact of an app-based, 4-month intervention. Newly diagnosed cancer patients were approached at three health service treatment clinics. Results: Eighty-two people were randomized (intervention; n = 43 and control; n = 39), average age was 59.5 years (SD: 12.9); 71% female; 67% married or in a de facto relationship. At baseline, there were no differences in participants' characteristics between the groups. No significant effects, in reducing unmet needs, were demonstrated at the end of intervention (4-month) or 12-month follow-up. Overall, 94% used the app in weeks 1-4, which decreased to 41% in weeks 13-16. Mean app use time per participant: Cancer Information, 6.9 (SD: 18.9) minutes; Appointment Schedule, 5.1 (SD: 9.6) minutes; Cancer Services 1.5 minutes (SD: 6.8); Hospital Navigation, 1.4 (SD: 2.8) minutes. Conclusions: Despite consumer involvement in the design of this smartphone technology, the app did not reduce unmet needs. This may have been due to the study 508 |

No abstract