Table 4.
Feasibility and implementation outcomes (n = 16 studies).
| Author, Year | Feasibility Outcomes a |
|---|---|
| Randomized Trials | |
| Casillas, 2019 [26] |
Mean survivorship care knowledge scale total score (range 1–5) in I vs. C1 vs. C2: 3.8 SD 0.9 pre, 4.2 SD 0.8 post (within-group p < 0.05) vs. 4.0 SD 0.9 pre, 4.1 SD 0.8 post (within-group p = 0.38); 3.5 SD 0.8 pre, 3.4 SD 0.6 post (within-group p = 0.67), p < 0.05 for I vs. C2 (ES 0.7), p = 0.07 (ES 0.3) for C1 vs. C2 |
| Gomersall, 2019 [27] |
83% (n = 31) of patients attended all four exercise sessions |
| Hershman, 2020 [29] |
Medication adherence failure (based on urine samples, accounting for censoring) in I vs. C: total 283 vs. 303 events, HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8, 1.1, p = 0.2 |
| Rico, 2020 [30] |
52 text messages were sent from day 1 to the beginning of cycle 4 |
| Spoelstra, 2016 [34] |
Mean adherence to OA in I vs. C: 6.5 SD 0.4 vs. 7.2 SD 0.5, p = 0.3 (ES 0.3) |
| Spoelstra, 2015 [33] |
Overall mean adherence in I vs. C: 6.0 SD 0.5 vs. 6.0 SD 0.5, p = 1 (ES 0); 1359 texts were sent to patients (1111 adherence, 116 symptom management, 52 additional, 53 welcome and 17 end of study) |
| Tan, 2020 [31] |
SMAQ adherence in I vs. C vs. All: 52.0% vs. 54.6% vs. 53.3% |
| Villaron, 2018 [32] |
Survey compliance was 64.6% |
| Non-Randomized Interventional/Observational Studies | |
| Bade, 2018 [35] |
Number of patients never using the device in I vs. C: 0% vs. 21% (out of n = 15 vs. n = 29) |
| Chow, 2019 [36] |
Screener adherence rate was 75% |
| Krok-Schoen, 2019 [11] |
Mean Morisky Adherence score in I vs. C (n = 36): 1.2 SD 1.3 vs. 1.9 SD 1.7, MD (I–C) −0.8, 95% CI −1.4, −0.2, p = 0.02 |
| Maguire, 2015 [37] |
182 alerts were generated over 12 months (138 amber, 44 red) |
| Mougalian, 2017 [38] |
86.1% of patients responded to all the daily texts (among those who completed the pilot study, response rate was 92.2%); Average of 10 min/week was spent using the application |
| Sawicki, 2019 [40] |
40% response rate to texts requiring a response; Optimal adherence in I vs. C: 53.4% vs. 43.7% (difference 9.7%, p = 0.02) |
| Tan, 2019 [41] |
No show rate in C vs. I: adjusted OR 6.8, 95% CI 5.5, 8.4, p < 0.0001 |
| Wells, 2020 [42] |
Odds of completing MBCT in I vs. C: 87% vs. 38%, p = 0.007, adjusted OR 7.8, 95% CI 1.8, 34.6 |
a Feasibility outcomes: The following hierarchy was used to determine which feasibility outcomes to include in the table: (1) one patient-level outcome and one systems-level outcome if available. Abbreviations: confidence interval (CI), control group (C), effect size (ES), intervention group (I), mean difference (MD), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), odds ratio (OR), oral anticancer (OA), standard deviation (SD), Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire (SMAQ). Note: outcome sample sizes are equal to sample sizes at baseline unless otherwise specified. For all outcomes, when multiple time points were recorded, we reported the longest available follow-up.