Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews.

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote cancer care delivery via the internet and telephone, rapidly accelerating an already growing care delivery model and associated research. This scoping review of reviews characterised the peer-reviewed literature reviews on digital health and telehealth interventions in cancer published from database inception up to May 1, 2022, from PubMed, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science. Eligible reviews conducted a systematic literature search. Data were extracted in duplicate via a pre-defined online survey. Following screening, 134 reviews met the eligibility criteria. 77 of those reviews were published since 2020. 128 reviews summarised interventions intended for patients, 18 addressed family caregivers, and five addressed health-care providers. 56 reviews did not target a specific phase of the cancer continuum, whereas 48 reviews tended to address the active treatment phase. 29 reviews included a meta-analysis, with results showing positive effects on quality of life, psychological outcomes, and screening behaviours. 83 reviews did not report intervention implementation outcomes but when reported, 36 reported acceptability, 32 feasibility, and 29 fidelity outcomes. Several notable gaps were identified in these literature reviews on digital health and telehealth in cancer care. No reviews specifically addressed older adults, bereavement, or sustainability of interventions and only two reviews focused on comparing telehealth to in-person interventions. Addressing these gaps with rigorous systematic reviews might help guide continued innovation in remote cancer care, particularly for older adults and bereaved families, and integrate and sustain these interventions within oncology.

Process evaluation of an intervention to increase provision of adolescent vaccines at school health centers.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination programs in school health centers (SHCs) may improve adolescent vaccine coverage. We conducted a process evaluation of an intervention to increase SHC-located vaccination to better understand the feasibility and challenges of such interventions. METHOD: Four SHCs participated in an intervention to increase provision of recommended vaccines to 2,975 adolescents. We reviewed program materials and SHC staff reports, and interviewed parents to assess implementation fidelity and reactions to materials. RESULTS: Ten percent of parents returned forms with consent to at least one vaccine. Of these, 79% checked the box consenting for "all recommended" vaccines, rather than indicating individual vaccines. SHCs sent supplemental mailings to some parents that clarified (a) vaccination costs or (b) human papillomavirus vaccine recommendation for boys and required parents to reconsent. This process resulted in loss of initial consent, primarily due to nonresponse. In interviews, parents who consented to vaccination indicated that intervention materials were clear and persuasive, but needed greater detail about costs and clinic processes. CONCLUSIONS: With limited additional investment, it appears feasible for SHCs to achieve a modest increase in the number of vaccinated adolescents. Providing a checkbox to indicate global consent for all recommended vaccinations, and close collaboration among individuals involved in intervention development, may facilitate vaccination efforts.