TY - JOUR
T1 - Barriers and facilitators to the availability of efficacious self-directed digital health tools for adults living with cancer and their caregivers
T2 - A systematic literature review and author survey study
AU - Bamgboje-Ayodele, Adeola
AU - Smith, Allan Ben
AU - Short, Camille E.
AU - Fardell, Joanna E.
AU - Shaw, Joanne
AU - Beatty, Lisa
AU - Higgins, Kristen
AU - Tutelman, Perri R.
AU - Chambers, Christine T.
AU - Girgis, Afaf
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - Objective: This study aimed to examine barriers and facilitators to the dissemination of efficacious self-directed digital health tools for adults affected by cancer, and quantify funding used to develop and evaluate these digital health tools. Methods: We conducted: (1) a systematic literature review to identify efficacious self-directed digital health tools for adults affected by cancer, published between 2009 and 2019 and (2) an author survey to identify barriers and facilitators to dissemination of those tools, grant funding and the user centredness of their design (UCD) process. Results: Of 1314 screened articles, 29 articles describing 26 tools met the inclusion criteria. From 26 surveys sent, 12 were completed, 6 of which described disseminated tools. Whilst researchers’ motivation and infrastructure support facilitate tool dissemination, limited funds, lack of infrastructure and limited research timelines are the most common barriers. A median of AUD$250,000 was spent on tools not disseminated to end-users. Conclusion: Although incorporating UCD processes in the development of digital health tools is important, it is imperative to integrate implementation processes into the planning stages of tool development to ensure dissemination. Practice Implications: Researchers, academic institutions, funding agencies and government and non-government organisations all have roles to play to support long-term implementation.
AB - Objective: This study aimed to examine barriers and facilitators to the dissemination of efficacious self-directed digital health tools for adults affected by cancer, and quantify funding used to develop and evaluate these digital health tools. Methods: We conducted: (1) a systematic literature review to identify efficacious self-directed digital health tools for adults affected by cancer, published between 2009 and 2019 and (2) an author survey to identify barriers and facilitators to dissemination of those tools, grant funding and the user centredness of their design (UCD) process. Results: Of 1314 screened articles, 29 articles describing 26 tools met the inclusion criteria. From 26 surveys sent, 12 were completed, 6 of which described disseminated tools. Whilst researchers’ motivation and infrastructure support facilitate tool dissemination, limited funds, lack of infrastructure and limited research timelines are the most common barriers. A median of AUD$250,000 was spent on tools not disseminated to end-users. Conclusion: Although incorporating UCD processes in the development of digital health tools is important, it is imperative to integrate implementation processes into the planning stages of tool development to ensure dissemination. Practice Implications: Researchers, academic institutions, funding agencies and government and non-government organisations all have roles to play to support long-term implementation.
KW - Cancer
KW - Digital health
KW - Implementation science
KW - Self-management
KW - User-centred design
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102776286&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2021.03.012
DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2021.03.012
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85102776286
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 104
SP - 2480
EP - 2489
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
IS - 10
ER -