Telemedicine Acceptance Among Older Adult Patients With Cancer: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is likely to remain the most prevalent noncommunicable disease in high-income countries with an older population. Interestingly, no review of attitudes toward telemedicine among older adults has been performed. This is likely to be the group most affected by both cancer and the increasing use of technology in health care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to map research on the acceptance of telemedicine among older adults who are cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from inception to September 2020. Articles were included if the study population had a mean or median age ≥65 years, with cancer diagnoses and if the study assessed patients' acceptance of a telemedicine intervention. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies were included. RESULTS: Out of a total of 887 articles that were identified, 19 were included in the review. Interventions were delivered via telephone, videoconference, web portal, mobile app, wearable technology, and text messaging and included teleconsultation, monitoring and follow-up, psychosocial support and nursing care, and prompts. The most often cited facilitating factor was convenience. Other facilitators included an increase in telemedicine care accessibility, previous positive experiences of telemedicine, appropriate technical knowledge and support, decreased cost, physician recommendations, and privacy conferred by the telemedicine intervention. Barriers include a preference for conventional care along with negative perceptions of telemedicine, concerns about technical difficulties, and confidentiality concerns in the adoption of telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: None of the studies explored the ability of tailored interventions to address facilitators and barriers of the acceptance of telemedicine in order to increase its adoption by older adults. Facilitators and barriers will likely differ across different cultural contexts and by type of telemedicine; however, this is a gap in current knowledge. In-depth studies are necessary to determine if interventions could potentially address the barriers identified in this review, to increase acceptability.

Colorectal cancer patients advocating screening to their siblings: a randomized behavioral intervention.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Siblings of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk of developing CRC, but screening rates remain low. Through a randomized behavioral intervention, this study aimed to determine whether patients can advocate screening to their siblings using a tailored educational package. METHODS: CRC survivors were recruited and randomized into relaying either tailored materials (intervention group) or existing national screening guidelines (control group) to their siblings. Siblings could respond to the study team if they were interested in learning about CRC screening. Study outcomes were patient advocacy rates (number of patients who had successfully contacted at least 1 eligible sibling) between groups and the proportion of eligible siblings who responded. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and March 2021, 219 CRC patients were randomized to the intervention (n = 110) and control (n = 109) groups. Patient advocacy rates were high and did not differ significantly between groups. However, only 14.3% of eligible siblings (n = 85) responded to the study team. Siblings of patients from the intervention group were more likely to respond (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.0; P < .05). Moreover, after controlling for potential confounders, siblings aged ≥60 years were significantly less likely to respond (adjusted odds ratio, .3; 95% confidence interval, .1-.7; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: CRC patients are willing advocates of screening, and siblings contacted by patients from the intervention group were also more likely to reach out to the study team. However, overall sibling response rates were low despite advocacy, suggesting that patient-led advocacy should at best be used as an adjunct to other, multipronged CRC screening promotion modalities.