Systematic review evaluates technology-based psychosocial education interventions for cancer patients, suggesting potential benefits for psychosocial outcomes.
Background: Technology-based health interventions present innovative and scalable approaches to enhance cancer care. These interventions have potential to support psychosocial well-being, which is often challenged following a cancer diagnosis and throughout survivorship. Such innovations also enable nurses to extend psychosocial support beyond traditional clinical settings and align with health policy efforts to integrate digital supportive care into routine oncology services. Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of technology-based psychosocial education interventions for cancer patients. Methods: Six databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline [Ovid], PubMed and Web of Science) were searched from inception to 29 April 2025. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB 2) was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated to synthesise outcomes measured using varied tools. Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1509 participants. Technology-based psychosocial education interventions significantly reduced fear of cancer recurrence (SMD = −0.21; 95% CI: −0.42 to −0.01; I ² = 4.7%; p = 0.04). Non-significant pooled estimates were observed for reduced psychological distress (SMD = −0.23; 95% CI: −0.61 to 0.15; I ² = 76.1%; p = 0.23) and improved quality of life (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: −0.02 to 0.45; I ² = 20.0%; p = 0.08). Conclusion: Technology-based psychosocial education interventions show promise in reducing fear of cancer recurrence and may support broader psychosocial outcomes. These interventions are scalable and suitable for diverse clinical settings, supporting nurse-led psychosocial education, remote patient follow-up and the integration of digital supportive care within oncology service delivery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saragih et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: