Telehealth is an emerging method which may overcome barriers to rehabilitation access for pediatric cancer survivors (aged ≤19 years). This systematic review aimed to examine telehealth-based rehabilitation interventions aimed at preventing, maintaining, or improving disability in pediatric cancer survivors.
Methods:
We performed systematic searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus between 1994 and 2022. Eligible studies included telehealth-based interventions assessing disability outcomes in pediatric cancers.
Results:
Database searches identified 4,040 records. Nine unique interventions met the eligibility criteria. Telehealth delivery methods included telephone (n = 6), email (n = 3), mobile health applications (n = 3), social media (n = 3), videoconferencing (n = 2), text messaging (n = 2), active video gaming (n = 2), and websites (n = 2). Interventions focused on physical activity (n = 8) or self-management (n = 1). Outcomes assessing disability varied (n = 6). Three studies reported statistically and clinically significant results. Narrative synthesis of findings was constructed based on the Picker's principles for patient-centered care: (1) values, preferences, and needs; (2) involve family and friends; (3) coordination of care; (4) provide social support; (5) holistic well-being; and (6) information and communication.
Conclusions:
Telehealth-based rehabilitation interventions for pediatric cancer survivors is an emerging research area with potential to improve disability outcomes. Adequately powered trials with consistency in disability outcome measures are warranted. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness and best practices for telehealth-based pediatric cancer rehabilitation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WardE, DeSantisC, RobbinsA, et al.Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin, 2014; 64(2):83–103; doi: 10.3322/caac.21219
2.
NessK, HowellC, BjornardK. Frailty and quality of life in adult survivors of childhood cancer. Expert Rev Qual Life Cancer Care, 2017; 2(2):79–85; doi: 10.1080/23809000.2017.1300507
3.
HayekS, GibsonTM, LeisenringWM, et al.Prevalence and predictors of frailty in childhood cancer survivors and siblings: A report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol, 2020; 38(3):232–247; doi: 10.1200/jco.19.01226
4.
McDougallJ, WrightV, RosenbaumP. The ICF model of functioning and disability: Incorporating quality of life and human development. Dev Neurorehabil, 2010; 13(3):204–211; doi: 10.3109/17518421003620525
5.
TannerL, KeppnerK, LesmeisterD, et al.Cancer rehabilitation in the pediatric and adolescent/young adult population. Semin Oncol Nurs, 2020; 36(1):150984; doi: org/10.1016/j.soncn.2019.150984
6.
LenkerH.Multidisciplinary rehabilitation within pediatric cancer care: A holistic approach. Rehabil Oncol, 2021; 39(2):E12–E14; doi: 10.1097/01.Reo.0000000000000263
7.
GilchristLS, GalantinoML, WamplerM, et al.A framework for assessment in oncology rehabilitation. Phys Ther, 2009; 89(3):286–306; doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070309
8.
HoudeshellMJ, ThomasKM, KingAA, et al.Limitations of current rehabilitation practices in pediatric oncology: Implications for improving comprehensive clinical care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2021; 102(12):2353–2361; doi: org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.05.021
9.
NessKK, GurneyJG. Adverse late effects of childhood cancer and its treatment on health and performance. Annu Rev Public Health, 2007; 28(1):279–302; doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144049
10.
StoutNL, SilverJK, AlfanoCM, et al.Long-term survivorship care after cancer treatment: A new emphasis on the role of rehabilitation services. Phys Ther, 2019; 99(1):10–13; doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzy115
11.
RodwinRL, MaX, NessKK, et al.Physical therapy utilization among hospitalized patients with pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. JCO Oncol Pract, 2022; 18(7):e1060–e1068; doi: 10.1200/OP.21.00796
12.
RyuS.Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States: Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth 2009 (Global Observatory for eHealth Series, Volume 2). Healthc Inform Res, 2012; 18(2):153–155; doi: 10.4258/hir.2012.18.2.153
13.
OlsonCA, McSwainSD, CurfmanAL, et al.The current pediatric telehealth landscape. Pediatrics, 2018; 141(3):e20172334; doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2334
14.
TerrellEA, AftabS, BabitzA, et al.The evolution of telehealth from pre-COVID-19 pandemic through a hybrid virtual care delivery model: A pediatric hospital's journey. Int J Telerehabil, 2021; 13(2):e6432.
15.
CurfmanA, McSwainSD, ChuoJ, et al.Pediatric telehealth in the COVID-19 pandemic Era and Beyond. Pediatrics, 2021; 148(3):e2020047795; doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-047795
16.
BrickR, PadgettL, JonesJ, et al.The influence of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions on disability: A systematic review. J Cancer Surviv, 2023; 17(6);1725–1750; doi: 10.1007/s11764-022-01181-4
17.
SiegelRL, MillerKD, FuchsHE, et al.Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin, 2022; 72(1):7–33; doi: 10.3322/caac.21708
18.
PageMJ, McKenzieJE, BossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021; 372:n71; doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
19.
Veritas Health Innovation Melbourne. Covidence Systematic Review Software. 2018. Available from: https://www.covidence.orghttps://support.covidence.org/help/how-can-i-cite-covidence#:∼:text=Covidence%20uses%20iterative%20product%20development,Health%20Innovation%2C%20Melbourne%2C%20Australia.
20.
KraemerHC, KupferDJ. Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice. Biol Psychiatry, 2006; 59(11):990–996; doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.09.014
21.
PopayJ, RobertsH, SowdenA, et al.Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. Lancaster University: Lancaster, United Kingdom; 2006.
22.
OrtizMR.Patient-centered care: Nursing knowledge and policy. Nurs Sci Q, 2018; 31(3):291–295; doi: 10.1177/0894318418774906
23.
GerteisM, Edgman-LevitanS, DaleyJ, et al.Through the Patient's Eyes: Understanding and Promoting Patient-Centered Care. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 1993.
24.
SterneJAC, SavovićJ, PageMJ, et al.RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019; 366:l4898; doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
25.
SterneJA, HernánMA, ReevesBC, et al.ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 2016; 355:i4919; doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
26.
LesterE, DiStefanoS, MaceR, et al.Virtual mind-body treatment for geographically diverse youth with neurofibromatosis: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 2020; 62:72–78; doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2019.12.001
27.
DevineKA, ViolaA, Levonyan-RadloffK, et al.Feasibility of FitSurvivor: A technology-enhanced group-based fitness intervention for adolescent and young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2020; 67(9):e28530; doi: 10.1002/pbc.28530
28.
EsbenshadeAJ, FriedmanDL, SmithWA, et al.Feasibility and initial effectiveness of home exercise during maintenance therapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Pediatr Phys Ther, 2014; 26(3):301–307; doi: 10.1097/pep.0000000000000053
29.
HamariL, JärveläLS, LähteenmäkiPM, et al.The effect of an active video game intervention on physical activity, motor performance, and fatigue in children with cancer: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Res Notes, 2019; 12(1):784; doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4821-z
30.
HookeMC, GilchristL, TannerL, et al.Use of a fitness tracker to promote physical activity in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2016; 63(4):684–689; doi: 10.1002/pbc.25860
31.
HuangJS, DillonL, TerronesL, et al.Fit4Life: A weight loss intervention for children who have survived childhood leukemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2014; 61(5):894–900; doi: 10.1002/pbc.24937
32.
JibbLA, StevensBJ, NathanPC, et al.Implementation and preliminary effectiveness of a real-time pain management smartphone app for adolescents with cancer: A multicenter pilot clinical study. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2017; 64(10); doi: 10.1002/pbc.26554
33.
LambertG, AlosN, BernierP, et al.Home-based telehealth exercise intervention in early-on survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Feasibility Study. JMIR Cancer, 2021; 7(2):e25569–e25569; doi: 10.2196/25569
34.
MendozaJA, BakerKS, MorenoMA, et al.A Fitbit and Facebook mHealth intervention for promoting physical activity among adolescent and young adult childhood cancer survivors: A pilot study. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2017; 64(12); doi: 10.1002/pbc.26660
35.
SabelM, SjölundA, BroerenJ, et al.Active video gaming improves body coordination in survivors of childhood brain tumours. Disabil Rehabil, 2016; 38(21):2073–2084; doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1116619
36.
SabelM, SjölundA, BroerenJ, et al.Effects of physically active video gaming on cognition and activities of daily living in childhood brain tumor survivors: A randomized pilot study. Neurooncol Pract, 2017; 4(2):98–110; doi: 10.1093/nop/npw020
37.
BruininksRH, BruininksBD. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2) [Database record]. APA PsycTests, 2005; doi: 10.1037/t14991-000
38.
HendersonSE, SugdenD, BarnettAL. Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 [Database record]. APA PsycTests, 2007; doi: 10.1037/t55281-000
39.
VarniJW, SeidM, KurtinPS. PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the pediatric quality of life inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care, 2001; 39(8):800–812; doi: 10.1097/00005650-200108000-00006
40.
BernspångB, FisherAG. Validation of the assessment of motor and process skills for use in Sweden. Scand J Occ Ther, 1995; 2(1):3–9; doi: 10.3109/11038129509106792
41.
SchmidtK, VogtL, ThielC, et al.Validity of the six-minute walk test in cancer patients. Int J Sports Med, 2013; 34(7):631–636; doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1323746
42.
RossSM, CaseL, LeungW. Aligning physical activity measures with the international classification of functioning, disability and health framework for childhood disability. Quest, 2016; 68(4):521–535; doi: 10.1080/00336297.2016.1145128
43.
Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC; 2001.
44.
ChulaniVL, GordonLP. Adolescent growth and development. Prim Care, 2014; 41(3):465–487; doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2014.05.002
45.
DeeganA, BrennanC, GallagherP, et al.Social support and childhood cancer survivors: A systematic review (2006–2022). Psychooncology, 2023; 32(6):819–833; doi: 10.1002/pon.6128
46.
BadrH, BakhshaieJ, ChhabriaK. Dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers: State of the science and new directions. Semin Oncol Nurs, 2019; 35(4):337–341; doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2019.06.004
47.
UchinoBN.Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. Am J Epidemiol, 2004; 161:297–298.
48.
DeterdingS, DixonD, KhaledR, et al.From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. Tampere, Finland: Association for Computing Machinery. 2011;9–15; doi: 10.1145/2181037.2181040
49.
PapathanasiouI.Holistic nursing care: Theories and perspectives. Am J Nurs Sci, 2013; 2(1):1; doi: 10.11648/j.ajns.20130201.11
50.
BrownMC, PodmoreM, Araújo-SoaresV, et al.Childhood cancer survivors' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to physical activity: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence using the theoretical domains framework. Health Psychol Rev, 2023; 17(2):277–300; doi: 10.1080/17437199.2022.2032795
51.
McCormackLA, TreimanK, RupertD, et al.Measuring patient-centered communication in cancer care: A literature review and the development of a systematic approach. Soc Sci Med, 2011; 72(7):1085–1095; doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.020
52.
SleightA, GerberLH, MarshallTF, et al.Systematic review of functional outcomes in cancer rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2022; 103(9):1807–1826; doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2022.01.142
53.
MoralesJS, ValenzuelaPL, Rincón-CastanedoC, et al.Exercise training in childhood cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev, 2018; 70:154–167; doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.08.012
54.
PetersonSJ, MozerM. Differentiating sarcopenia and cachexia among patients with cancer. Nutr Clin Pract, 2017; 32(1):30–39; doi: 10.1177/0884533616680354
55.
GoodenoughCG, PartinRE, NessKK. Skeletal muscle and childhood cancer: Where are we now and where we go from here. Aging Cancer, 2021; 2(1–2):13–35; doi: 10.1002/aac2.12027
56.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2030. Available from: https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/social-determinants-health [Last accessed: August10, 2022].
57.
TranY.H., CovenSL, ParkS, et al.Social determinants of health and pediatric cancer survival: A systematic review. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2022; 69(5):e29546; doi: 10.1002/pbc.29546
58.
ZettlerME, FeinbergBA, Jeune-SmithY, et al.Impact of social determinants of health on cancer care: A survey of community oncologists. BMJ Open, 2021; 11(10):e049259; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049259
59.
ErdmannF, FeychtingM, MogensenH, et al.Social inequalities along the childhood cancer continuum: An overview of evidence and a conceptual framework to identify underlying mechanisms and pathways. Front Public Health, 2019; 7:84; doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00084
60.
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. NIMHD Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Framework. 2017. Available from: https://nimhd.nih.gov/about/overview/research-framework/ [Last accessed: July26, 2022].
61.
GlanzK, BishopDB. The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annu Rev Public Health, 2010; 31:399–418; doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103604
62.
GBD 2019 Adolescent Young Adult Cancer Collaborators. The global burden of adolescent and young adult cancer in 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Oncol, 2022; 23(1):27–52; doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00581-7
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
