ArticleJMIR cancer2025
Digital Health Portals for Individuals Living With or Beyond Cancer: Patient-Driven Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital oncology interventions and equity: a scoping review of design strategies to address cancer disparities.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Patients With Cancer Receiving Antineoplastic or Supportive Therapy: Comparative Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Time-bounded uncertainty in childhood cancer survivorship: a psycho-oncology perspective on result communication.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital health portals are online platforms allowing individuals to access their personal information and communicate with health care providers. While digital health portals have been associated with improved health outcomes and more streamlined health care processes, their impact on individuals living with or beyond cancer remains underexplored.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to (1) identify the portal functionalities reported in studies involving individuals living with or beyond cancer, as well as the outcomes assessed, and (2) explore the diversity of participant characteristics and potential factors associated with portal use.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review in accordance with the JBI methodology (formerly the Joanna Briggs Institute) and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We included primary research studies published between 2014 and 2024 that involved participants living with or beyond cancer, had access to personal health information, and assessed at least one outcome related to health or the health care system. We searched the Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid), and CINAHL Plus with Full Text databases. Five reviewers independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts in duplicate using Covidence. We extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, portal functionalities, outcomes assessed, and PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence; race, ethnicity, culture, or language; occupation; gender or sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; and social capital-Plus) equity factors.
resultsWe included 44 studies; most were conducted in the United States (n=30, 68%) and used quantitative (n=23, 52%), mixed methods (n=11, 25%), or qualitative (n=10, 23%) designs. The most common portal features were access to test results (28/44, 64%) and secure messaging (30/44, 68%). Frequently reported services included appointment-related functions (19/44, 43%), educational resources (13/44, 30%), and prescription management features (11/44, 25%). Behavioral and technology-related outcomes were the most frequently assessed (37/44, 84%), followed by system-level (19/44, 43%), psychosocial (16/44, 36%), and clinical outcomes (5/44, 11%). Overall, 43% (19/44) of the studies addressed PROGRESS-Plus factors. Age was the most frequently reported (13/19, 68%), followed by socioeconomic status (10/19, 53%), race or ethnicity (7/19, 37%), and gender or sex (7/19, 37%). Social capital (2/19, 11%), occupation (1/19, 5%), and disability (1/19, 5%) were rarely considered, and religion was not reported in any study.
conclusionsWhile digital health portals enhance patient engagement, their clinical impact and equity implications remain insufficiently evaluated. We found disparities in functionalities, outcomes, and PROGRESS-Plus representation. To promote equitable benefits, future studies should adopt inclusive designs and evaluation strategies that address diverse outcomes and integrate social determinants of health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.