In the Netherlands, according to the IKNL (Integral Cancer Center of the Netherlands), 124,000 patients were diagnosed with cancer in 2021, 11,000 more than in 2020 and 4,000 more than in 2019. According to government website State of Public Health and Care, more than 45,000 people died of cancer in 2020. Furthermore, about 770,000 Dutch people are living with cancer or have had cancer in the past 20 years.
Support people with cancer
In recent years, more and more e-health/digital applications have been introduced to support people with or after cancer. For example for thuismonitoring of cancer patients, to mental problems to tackle cancer (and chronic conditions), or for home rehabilitation of people recovering from surgery on a tumor. Preventive apps are available for early detecting skin cancerwhile at the other end of the spectrum, apps help to fatigue due to cancer and limit their treatment.
What is still missing is an overview of which interventions are available for cancer patients in the Netherlands. It is also not clear what the impact of these interventions is on patients and the quality of care. The research of Van Deursen and colleagues should provide this overview.
Offer and characteristics
The research first mapped out which scientifically researched e-health interventions are offered and what the most important characteristics of these interventions are. This was done on the basis of the three pillars of the Triple Aim concept:
- The health of the patients.
- The perceived quality of care.
- The healthcare costs.
In addition, the study examined the impact of the interventions on the care of cancer patients. 38 unique interventions have been identified – mainly web portals and applications – whose main aim is to inform users or to increase the self-management of cancer patients. The interventions usually focused on psychosocial factors or problems.
Little personalization
It is striking, according to the authors of the review, that few interventions are personalized according to age, gender or severity of the disease. Furthermore, they concluded that interventions had the greatest impact on patients’ sleep quality, fatigue and physical activity. The results were variable for quality of life, psychological complaints and the ability to adapt to the disease. Little concrete has been found about the impact of the interventions on healthcare costs.
The review is composed by: Liza van Deursen, Jiska Aardoom, Anke Versluis, Niels Chavannes, Roos van der Vaart, Jeroen Struijs, Lucille Standaar.
Related
–
