Digital Health in Pediatric Oncology and Hematooncology: A Quasi-Systematic Review of Telehealth, mHealth and Precision Medicine.

Digital Health in Pediatric Oncology and Hematooncology: A Quasi-Systematic Review of Telehealth, mHealth and Precision Medicine - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Cancer Manag Res . 2026 Apr 17;18:570990. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S570990 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Digital Health in Pediatric Oncology and Hematooncology: A Quasi-Systematic Review of Telehealth, mHealth and Precision Medicine Karolina Joanna Ziętara Karolina Joanna Ziętara 1 Florian Ceynowa Hospital, Pomeranian Hospitals, Wejherowo, Poland Find articles by Karolina Joanna Ziętara 1, *, ✉ , Piotr Pawłowski Piotr Pawłowski 2 Department of Psychology, Psychosocial Aspects of Medicine, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland 3 Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Applied Sciences in Chełm, Chełm, Poland Find articles by Piotr Pawłowski 2, 3, * , Natalia Zaj Natalia Zaj 4 University Children’s Hospital in Lublin, Lublin, Poland Find articles by Natalia Zaj 4 , Maria Banasik Maria Banasik 2 Department of Psychology, Psychosocial Aspects of Medicine, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland 5 Department of Psychology, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland Find articles by Maria Banasik 2, 5 , Marzena Samardakiewicz Marzena Samardakiewicz 2 Department of Psychology, Psychosocial Aspects of Medicine, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland Find articles by Marzena Samardakiewicz 2 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Florian Ceynowa Hospital, Pomeranian Hospitals, Wejherowo, Poland 2 Department of Psychology, Psychosocial Aspects of Medicine, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland 3 Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Applied Sciences in Chełm, Chełm, Poland 4 University Children’s Hospital in Lublin, Lublin, Poland 5 Department of Psychology, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland ✉ Correspondence: Karolina Joanna Ziętara, Email [email protected] * These authors contributed equally to this work Received 2025 Sep 28; Accepted 2026 Mar 26; Collection date 2026. © 2026 Ziętara et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v4.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php ). PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13098760  PMID: 42022306 Abstract Pediatric oncological and hematological diseases remain a significant challenge due to their complexity, the need for personalized treatment, and long-term follow-up. Recent advances in medical technologies, particularly in information technology (IT), telemedicine, mobile health (mHealth), and precision medicine, have opened new possibilities for improving care and supporting clinical decision-making in pediatric patients. This quasi-systematic review examines the current landscape of emerging technologies applied in pediatric oncology and hematology. A structured literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar between March and April 2024, covering studies published from January 2018 to February 2024. A total of 157 met the predefined inclusion criteria. A critical analysis was performed regarding the clinical utility, implementation readiness, and limitations of these technologies, with particular attention to developmental variability and pediatric-specific safety requirements. Telehealth and mHealth tools were identified as effective solutions to improve accessibility and continuity of care by enabling remote consultations, real-time monitoring, and enhanced patient and family engagement. Precision medicine approaches demonstrated improved progression-free survival in selected high-risk pediatric populations, while AI-based tools supported diagnostic and prognostic decision-making. Despite these advances, the overall evidence remains heterogeneous, with limited high-quality randomized trials and scarce long-term cost-effectiveness evaluations. Ethical, infrastructural, and economic barriers continue to affect widespread implementation. A multidimensional and system-oriented approach is required to effectively integrate innovative technologies into real-world pediatric oncology and hematooncology settings. Keywords: information technology, telemedicine, mobile application, hematologic neoplasm Introduction Pediatric oncology and hematology have experienced significant advances in survival rates over the past few decades. It is estimated that by 2040, the number of people in the United States of America (USA), who have survived childhood cancer will reach 580,000. 1 This progress is largely attributed to the introduction of innovative treatments, such as molecularly targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and multimodal approaches. However, these advancements are also accompanied by both early and long-term complications, which elevate the overall medical risks. These complications include premature death and a range of biological, psychological, social, and spiritual health challenges. 1–3 The rapid development of technology has influenced all aspects of modern life, including healthcare, leading to transformative changes in the way medical care is delivered. 4 Among the emerging paradigms is smart healthcare, which emphasizes a more personalized approach by considering an individual’s unique characteristics and specific needs (eg, patient-centered care and personalized management, etc). Preventive healthcare, a critical element in improving global health outcomes, has gained increasing attention, with a focus on early detection, proactive management, and long-term monitoring. 5 , 6 These principles are especially critical in pediatric oncology, where long-term survivorship and the prevention of late effects remain central challenges. Recent advancements in digital health technologies, including telemedicine, mobile health (mHealth), artificial intelligence (AI), and wearables, have opened new avenues for enhancing pediatric oncology care. Digital tools are now being utilized for remote monitoring of complications, assessing treatment outcomes, and optimizing treatment strategies. The integration of AI in particular has shown promise in early detection and predictive modeling, improving the precision of treatments tailored to individual patients. mHealth tools are also playing a vital role in tracking symptoms, improving patient engagement, and enhancing communication between patients, families, and healthcare providers. Such tools contribute to better treatment adherence and reduce the burden of in-person visits. 7 , 8 Additionally, there is an increased focus on improving patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptom reduction, quality of life (QOL), and a reduction in emergency department visits. These outcomes are essential indicators of the effectiveness of cancer therapies and can offer valuable insights into the patient’s overall well-being. 9 E-health solutions have become integral across all stages of the therapeutic process—from diagnosis to treatment and both short- and long-term follow-up care. 10 As a result, digital health has evolved into several main branches, including telehealth (telemedicine), m-health, hardware technology, and hybrid models that combine elements of these areas. The role of precision medicine, which tailors’ treatment based on genetic and molecular profiling, has also emerged as an important component of digital health practices in pediatric oncology. 6 , 11 Despite these advances, the evidence remains fragmented, with limited synthesis of their clinical utility, accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and long-term outcomes in pediatric oncology. Unresolved challenges also include data security, ethical considerations in children, and integration into existing clinical systems. In addition, the implementation of digital health technologies in pediatric oncology requires careful consideration of child-specific ethical and developmental factors. Informed consent procedures must account for both parental authority and the evolving autonomy of adolescents. Developmental variability influences usability, comprehension, and engagement with digital tools, particularly in younger children. Furthermore, disparities in access to digital devices, stable internet connectivity, and digital literacy may disproportionately affect families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, potentially widening health inequalities. Regulatory frameworks for data protection and genomic information management are also more complex in pediatric settings, where long-term implications of data storage and incidental findings must be carefully addressed. These pediatric-specific considerations underscore the need for a tailored evaluation of digital health integration in childhood cancer care. Although several recent reviews have addressed digital health interventions in oncology, most have focused either on adult populations, single technological domains (eg., telemedicine or mHealth), or specific clinical endpoints. Moreover, the rapid evolution of digital tools and precision approaches has led to a continuously expanding and heterogeneous evidence base that requires updated and integrative evaluation in pediatric settings. However, there remains a lack of integrative syntheses that comprehensively evaluate telehealth, mHealth, e-health infrastructure, and precision medicine within a unified pediatric oncology and hematooncology framework. Pediatric populations present distinct developmental, ethical, and infrastructural challenges that are often underrepresented in broader digital health analyses. Therefore, a comprehensive and pediatric-centered synthesis remains necessary to contextualize emerging technologies within the unique clinical and psychosocial realities of childhood cancer care. The purpose of this quasi-systematic review is to evaluate and synthesize current evidence on digital health technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology. Specifically, it examines their clinical utility, accessibility, cost-effectiveness, safety, and implementation barriers, while also addressing ethical issues and sustainability. By linking therapeutic challenges faced by children and their families with emerging e-health solutions, this review seeks to provide a critical analysis of their applicability, highlight opportunities for innovation, and identify gaps that require further research. Material and Methods In this study, a quasi-systematic literature review approach was adopted. The choice of this methodology was driven by the specific nature of the research area, namely innovative digital technologies and precision medicine in pediatric oncology and hematooncology. This field is characterized by dynamic development and substantial heterogeneity of available studies, encompassing not only high-quality clinical trials but also early-phase research, pilot studies, qualitative investigations, case studies, and narrative analyses. Under such conditions, a traditional systematic review, based on highly restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria, could lead to an excessive narrowing of the research material and the exclusion of publications which—despite a lower methodological rigor—provide significant cognitive and practical contributions. Unlike a conventional systematic review, the quasi-systematic approach allows for greater openness to heterogeneous types of studies and sources, which is particularly justified in interdisciplinary and rapidly evolving fields, where scientific evidence is dispersed and often does not yet meet the standards of randomized controlled trials. Thus, the quasi-systematic literature review enabled the combination of transparency and reproducibility of the search process with interpretative flexibility. This approach made it possible to provide a nuanced and in-depth synthesis of knowledge, more accurately reflecting the current state of research on emerging technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology, as well as to formulate conclusions relevant both for clinical practice and for future research directions. Identification of Studies The literature search was conducted in March and April 2024. To ensure a comprehensive and methodologically rigorous search, the team developed a structured search protocol, encompassing inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction methods, and a clear selection process. The search strategy was designed to capture relevant studies addressing key issues directly related to the research question. To ensure the search was both thorough and relevant, the team employed a combination of everyday language and authoritative controlled vocabularies such as MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and Emtree. A preliminary logical equation was crafted for each selected database to refine the search parameters and finalize the selection of keywords. The following search phrase was used across the databases: (“new information technologies”[MeSH] OR “e-health” OR “mobile health applications” OR “telemedicine”[MeSH] OR “digital health” OR “precision medicine”[MeSH]) AND (“pediatric oncology”[MeSH] OR “pediatric hematooncology” OR “childhood cancer” OR “blood cancers” OR “pediatric leukemia”[MeSH] OR “pediatric lymphoma”[MeSH]) AND (“effectiveness” OR “patient outcomes” OR “quality of life” OR “engagement” OR “treatment adherence” OR “symptom management”). The search strategy was adapted to the syntax and indexing system of each database (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). In PubMed, a combination of MeSH terms and free-text keywords was used. In Scopus and Web of Science, equivalent controlled vocabulary (eg., Emtree where applicable) and keyword combinations were applied. For Google Scholar, simplified keyword strings were used due to platform limitations. Boolean operators (“AND”, “OR”), truncation, and phrase searching were applied as appropriate for each database to maximize sensitivity while maintaining relevance. All retrieved records were exported to reference management software, where duplicates were identified and removed prior to title and abstract screening. Manual verification was additionally performed to ensure accurate deduplication. A search filter was applied to limit the study population to children aged 0–18 years, as the review’s primary focus was on pediatric oncology and hematooncology. The primary research question guiding the review was: “What are the currently available new technologies used in pediatric oncology and hematooncology, and how effective are they in improving patient outcomes, including treatment efficacy, quality of life, and caregiver engagement?” This question provided a clear framework for the literature search and selection process, ensuring that the studies included in the review addressed the effectiveness, safety, accessibility, and impact of emerging technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology. This question provided a clear framework for the literature search and selection process, ensuring that the studies included in the review addressed the effectiveness, safety, accessibility, and impact of emerging technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Eligible studies were required to meet the following criteria to ensure that the review comprehensively covered the relevant literature while maintaining scientific rigor: 1. Study Design: ● Only empirical studies were included. These include: ○ Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ○ Cohort studies ○ Case-control studies ○ Cross-sectional studies ○ Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluate the effectiveness of technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology. ● Qualitative studies that assess the attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of patients, and healthcare providers were also considered. 2. Population: ● Studies must focus on pediatric populations aged 0–18 years diagnosed with cancer or blood disorders, specifically pediatric oncology and pediatric hematooncology (eg., leukemia, lymphoma). ● Studies involving children and adolescents were included if they assessed technologies directly related to the pediatric patient’s care. 3. Technologies: ● Eligible studies must focus on the use of new technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology. These technologies include: ○ Telemedicine and telehealth platforms ○ mHealth applications for symptom tracking, medication adherence, etc. ○ Wearable devices for health monitoring (eg., smartwatches, sensors) ○ AI applications in diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient monitoring ○ Precision medicine tools (eg., genomic testing, targeted therapies) ○ Digital health interventions, including social media platforms for patient support and education ● Studies must evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and impact of these technologies on clinical outcomes, treatment adherence, QOL. 4. Time Frame: ● Studies published between January 2018 and February 2024 were included. This period was selected to focus on the most recent advancements and technological innovations in pediatric oncology and hematooncology. By concentrating on studies published within the last five years, the review ensures that the findings are relevant to current clinical practices and reflect the latest trends in digital health technologies. This time frame also allows for an assessment of the rapid developments in areas such as telemedicine, mHealth, AI, and precision medicine, which have seen significant growth and integration into healthcare systems in recent years. By focusing on this period, the review aims to provide an up-to-date understanding of the effectiveness and impact of these technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology. 5. Outcome Measures: ● Studies had to report on one or more of the following outcomes: ○ Effectiveness of the technology in improving clinical outcomes (eg., symptom management, treatment efficacy). ○ Impact on QOL for patients. ○ Patient engagement, including factors like technology use adherence, communication, and participation in treatment decisions. ○ Cost-effectiveness or economic evaluation of the technology’s implementation. ○ Safety and adverse events related to the use of the technology. 6. Language: ● Only studies published in English were included due to the team’s language proficiency. However, studies published in other languages could be included if reliable translations were available. The following criteria were applied to exclude studies that did not meet the scope or quality standards for the quasi-systematic review: 1. Study Design: ○ Studies that were not empirical or did not involve direct data collection were excluded. These include: ■ Editorials ■ Opinion pieces ■ Letters to the editor ■ Case reports ■ Study protocols (unless the results were reported) ■ Articles without a clear methodology. 2. Population: ○ Studies that did not focus on children or adolescents (0–18 years) with cancer or hematologic disorders were excluded. ○ Studies involving only adults or studies with no clear delineation between adult and pediatric populations were excluded. ○ Studies focusing exclusively on parents or caregivers without any direct involvement of the pediatric patient were excluded. 3. Technologies: ○ Studies focusing on non-digital or traditional treatments (eg., chemotherapy, surgery) without incorporating new technologies such as telemedicine or mHealth tools were excluded. ○ Research that dealt with general healthcare technologies without focusing specifically on pediatric oncology or hematooncology were not included. 4. Outcome Measures: ○ Studies that did not report on the effectiveness or impact of the technology, or that lacked clear outcome measures such as clinical outcomes, quality of life, or engagement, were excluded. ○ Articles that assessed the cost or economic analysis of technologies but did not consider their clinical effectiveness were also excluded. 5. Data Quality: ○ Studies with insufficient data or methodological flaws, including lack of valid statistical analysis or inappropriate data collection methods, were excluded. ○ Studies with incomplete reporting (eg., missing key data on technology use, outcomes, or sample sizes) were excluded. 6. Language: ○ Studies published in languages other than English without available translations were excluded. 7. Publication Type: ○ Abstracts and conference proceedings were excluded unless they provided full details of results and were of high scientific quality (eg., presented in peer-reviewed conference journals). Grey literature (eg., unpublished reports or non-peer-reviewed materials) was not systematically searched, as the review focused on peer-reviewed academic publications. ○ Post-conference reports and meeting summaries were excluded due to their limited methodological rigor and lack of detailed findings. Data Selection Process The data selection process was conducted using a two-stage approach to ensure methodological rigor, minimize bias, and enhance the reliability of the review. In the first stage, each reviewer independently assessed the titles and abstracts of the studies retrieved from the selected databases to determine their eligibility based on the pre-established inclusion criteria, formulated using the PEO framework (Population, Exposure, Outcome). This framework ensured a clear and focused search by addressing three critical components: ● Population (P): Studies had to involve pediatric patients aged 0–18 years diagnosed with oncology or hematooncology-related diseases. ● Exposure (E): The studies must assess the impact of new technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology, including telemedicine, mHealth applications, precision medicine, and related technologies. ● Outcome (O): The studies must report on at least one relevant outcome, such as treatment effectiveness, symptom management, QOL, or patient engagement with the technology. This first stage ensured a broad range of relevant articles were considered. Studies that did not meet these PEO criteria were excluded. In the second stage, two independent reviewers examined the full texts of the articles retained after the initial screening. They assessed whether the articles met the PEO criteria and confirmed their relevance based on the Population, Exposure, and Outcome components. In case of any disagreements regarding inclusion or exclusion, the reviewers engaged in structured discussions to attempt to reach a consensus. If consensus could not be reached, the disagreement was referred to a third impartial reviewer, whose decision was final. This structured approach to resolving disagreements ensured consistency, transparency, and impartiality throughout the selection process. Additionally, the reference lists of the selected studies were manually reviewed to identify any additional relevant studies, allowing for a more holistic selection process and ensuring no key studies were overlooked. A detailed flow diagram illustrating the study selection process, including the reasons for exclusions, is provided in Figure 1 , which enhances the transparency and reproducibility of the selection process. The initial database search yielded 1,245 records. After removal of duplicates (612), 633 titles and abstracts were screened. A total of 633 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 157 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final synthesis. Figure 1. Open in a new tab Study Identification and Selection Flowchart. Evaluation Framework To provide a transparent and multidimensional assessment, the authors evaluated emerging technologies in pediatric oncology and hematooncology against a predefined set of criteria: Clinical utility – the extent to which the technology demonstrated improvements in treatment effectiveness, symptom control, adherence, or survival outcomes. Implementation readiness – the developmental stage of the technology and its feasibility for clinical adoption. Safety – the appropriateness and tolerability of the technology in pediatric populations, with attention to developmental sensitivity. Impact on QOL – evidence that the technology improved overall well-being, daily functioning, or patient and family satisfaction. Accessibility – availability of the technology in different healthcare settings, including rural or resource-limited contexts. Cost-effectiveness – financial feasibility, including evidence of cost savings, resource optimization, or favorable economic evaluation. System integration – compatibility of the technology with existing healthcare infrastructure, such as electronic health records (EHRs) and hospital information systems. Because these domains encompass complex and heterogeneous outcomes, the assessment was qualitative but structured. Each technology was scored on a 1–5 scale (1 = minimal or weak evidence, 5 = strong, well-documented evidence), based on available peer-reviewed studies. Scoring was performed independently by two reviewers and finalized through consensus. Results are presented in Table 1 , which highlights strengths and limitations of each technology across domains. Table 1. Comparative Evaluation of Emerging Technologies in Pediatric Oncology and Hematooncology. Summary of Strengths and Limitations Across Predefined Domains, Based on Available Peer-Reviewed Evidence Technology Clinical Utility Implementation Readiness Safety QOL impact Accessibility Cost-Effectiveness System Integration Telehealth/Teleoncology 4 – Improved continuity of care, reduced visits, effective in monitoring 12 , 13 4 – Rapid adoption during COVID-19 14 , 15 4 – Generally safe; risks in miscommunication 16 , 17 3 – Mixed effects on QOL 18 , 19 4 – Increases reach, incl. cross-country collaboration 20 3 – Reduced costs for families and providers, limited formal analyses 13 3 – Integration barriers: legislative and organizational 21 mHealth applications 3 – Benefits in adherence, symptom tracking 22–24 3 – Mostly pilots/feasibility; some RCTs 24 4 – Safe; main risks are privacy and digital divide 25 , 26 4 – Improved engagement and empowerment 27 , 28 4 – High smartphone penetration 29 , 30 2 – Limited robust economic evaluations 31 2 – Few integrated into EMRs 28 Wearables/e-Health tools 3 – Useful in adherence, activity, diet monitoring 32–34 2 – Mostly experimental, limited trials 35 , 36 3 – Generally safe, compliance challenges 33 3 – Some benefit in psychological support 37 3 – Dependent on device/internet access 31 2 – Few cost analyses; cybersecurity issues 38–40 2 – Limited interoperability; security risks 39 , 40 Precision medicine 5 – Strong evidence for targeted therapies and genomic profiling 41–43 3 – Advanced in major centers, limited access elsewhere 42 4 – Safer vs. standard chemo; incidental findings possible 6 , 41 4 – Reduced toxicity, potential QOL gains 41 2 – High cost, limited availability 42 , 43 2 – Resource-intensive, under evaluation 43 3 – Requires advanced bioinformatics and registries 42 Open in a new tab Abbreviations : QOL, Quality of Life; RCTs, Randomized Controlled Trials; EMRs, Electronic Medical Records. Study designs were categorized (eg., randomized trials, observational studies, qualitative studies, and reviews) and interpreted within their methodological hierarchy to avoid overgeneralization of lower-level evidence. The findings were not only summarized but also synthesized across studies, highlighting consistent trends, notable gaps, and areas where further research is required. Evidence was interpreted in light of study design, with randomized controlled trials and registry-based analyses considered higher-level evidence, whereas pilot feasibility studies and single-group designs were treated as exploratory and hypothesis-generating. This approach ensured that individual examples informed broader arguments about the utility and limitations of digital health in pediatric oncology. Results Telehealth (Telemedicine) Telemedicine (telehealth) consists in the use of remote communication tools in health care, by means of teleinformation systems. A prerequisite for its existence is the fact that the locations of the health specialist and the patient or his caregiver are separate. 44 , 45 The COVID-19 pandemic marked a breakthrough in the development and implementation of telemedicine. 14 Due to imposed restrictions and the need to protect vulnerable patients, particularly those who immunosuppressed, telemedicine played an important role in monitoring conditions and, in selected cases, supporting diagnosis and maintenance treatment in pediatric oncology. 12 , 15 , 46 In a multicenter study within the framework of the operation of the European Reference Network for Pediatric Transplantation (ERN TransplantChild) analyzing transplant procedures, it was shown that the timing of the pandemic was associated with reduced outpatient visits, and 12 of the 18 participating centers used telemedicine tools in monitoring mild and moderate cases of infection. In recent years, a subfield of the second type called teleoncology dedicated to oncology patients, their caregivers and families have emerged. 13 Its main branches used in pediatrics are telecommunications, telecounseling, tele-education. 16 Telecommunication enables continuous interaction between patients and healthcare providers, between patients and their families, and among members of treatment teams, including inter-center consultations. It is a fundamental component of preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, and follow-up care. Telecommunication primarily relies on tools that facilitate real-time or asynchronous exchange of information, such as instant messaging, chat rooms, online platforms, and video conferencing programs. 16 Telecounseling includes all medical advice responding to the current problems of the care subject. This process is mainly at the stage of diagnosis (so-called diagnostic counseling), treatment (tolerance of treatment, monitoring of complications, etc)., as well as post-treatment follow-up, surveillance of late complications of the underlying disease and the applied treatment. Telecounseling is also used during inter-center counseling in case of specialists’ inexperience or cancer diagnostic and therapeutic doubts. 17 , 47 A study by Bento et al analyzing the effectiveness of intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment (IIPT) (50% inpatient treatment, 50% real-time consultation using video) in a group of 42 pediatric oncology patients, with a 42-person control group treated conventionally (100% inpatient), noted a reduction in pain levels in both groups, but IIPT patients showed higher pain levels at discharge and transition to the telehealth model. Anxiety levels were examined synchronously - hybrid-treated patients had higher levels of this trait at follow-up visits. 18 A pilot study by Yang et al, using diagnostic surveys, audits, and interviews, assessed the number and effectiveness of oncofertility telehealth interventions in adolescents with cancer. The results suggested that remote communication tools increase the availability of such services in the pediatric population. 48 Similar conclusions were reported by Dornisch et al. 49 In a scoping review including 17 publications, Miller et al examined the use of telemedicine to support children receiving palliative care and their families. They found no differences in treatment outcomes or patient QOL compared with outpatient care, but noted a reduction in caregiver burnout and improved resilience, alongside widespread acceptability and feasibility of telehealth in this setting. A key limitation of this review was the small number of included studies, restricting inference mainly to pediatric end-of-life care. 19 A study by Handayani et al analyzed 38 teleconsultations of 53 patients conducted via teleconferencing between Dutch and Indonesian teaching hospitals. The most frequent forms of specialist support provided to the lower-income setting were diagnostic testing (lab tests 68%, imaging 54%) and therapeutic recommendations, which were modified in 75% of cases. These findings suggest that such collaboration may be beneficial, though socio-cultural context, medical infrastructure, therapy availability, and financial constraints must also be considered. 20 Tele-education is a branch of teleoncology that encompasses inter-center education using a collaborative learning model, sharing experiences through information technology (IT). It connects closely. 17 It also allows school-age patients to continue their education and learning. 50 Digital education can also support caregivers of children and adolescents with cancer, helping to prepare them for home care. In a review of 29 systematic reviews, narrative evidence on childhood cancer survivor care indicated that online information, psychoeducation through video conferencing, online mentoring programs, non-behavioral therapy, and neurocognitive learning interventions improved psychological well-being and reduced stress and fear of recurrence. However, effects on depression and anxiety were inconsistent, with mixed results across studies. 19 A narrative descriptive review by Martiniuk et al reviewed educational digital platforms dedicated to pediatric oncologists in low-resource areas. They indexed 33 resources, which were then rated according to 23 CRAAP items: Currency (timeliness of information), Relevance (information meets needs), Authority (source of information), Accuracy (reliability, correctness) and Purpose (reason for information). Only 12 of the analyzed platforms scored above 30 points, which equates to high quality, these included: CancerPOINTE, Cure4Kids, USA American Cancer Society (ACS), USA National Cancer Institute (NCI), Macmillan Cancer Support professional’s webpage. These findings suggest that when using some of the cyber-education tools, caution should be exercised, and the information contained therein should be approached with caution. 51 An observational study by Kaka et al, 2021, evaluating virtual psychosocial support groups for children with hematooncology patients and their families noted that psychoeducation provided through an online process by creating a space to experience emotions together minimizes stress, feelings of social isolation, and gives beneficiaries the vitality to cope with pathogenic stressors. However, it has some limitations, in the form of varying internet connection speeds and equipment resources of the individual, depending on his socio-economic situation, lack of a private space to share personal problems in confidence due to the housing limitations of the family’s place of residence. 52 A systematic review by Kermani, Orooji, and Sheikhtaheri (2020), which included 20 studies published up to October 31, 2019, concluded that pediatric teleoncology is beneficial. Reported advantages included reductions in healthcare costs (travel, drug preparation, equipment depreciation and operating costs), as well as decreases in mortality and improvements in survival, recurrence monitoring, and management of early and late complications. Teleoncology tools were also found to increase satisfaction with care by enhancing collaboration among pediatric oncology centers, sharing expertise, and improving care management. 13 Although telemedicine has gained popularity and acceptance in the medical community in recent years, but the main obstacles to its general introduction into standards of care are financial, organizational and legislative variables, as well as the lack of official evidence-based guidelines for the implications of new technologies. 21 Overall, the available evidence suggests that telehealth in pediatrics offers potential benefits for continuity of care and access, particularly in situations where in-person visits are limited. 12–15 , 20 , 46 Its role in supporting families and providers has been well demonstrated in palliative care and cross-border collaborations, although outcomes for QOL remain mixed and sometimes inconclusive. 18 , 19 Notably, some studies reported outcomes comparable to standard in-person care rather than clear superiority, particularly in relation to psychosocial indicators and long-term quality-of-life measures. Studies indicate that telehealth interventions are generally safe, but concerns remain about communication quality, data security, and the lack of standardized protocols. 16 , 17 , 21 , 47 Economic analyses point toward potential cost savings, mainly through reduced travel and resource use, though comprehensive cost-effectiveness evaluations are still limited. 13 Taken together, telehealth emerges as a promising but not yet fully systematized approach, requiring further evidence and stronger structural support to realize its full potential in pediatric oncology. m-Health While telehealth primarily expands clinical services through remote communication, mHealth complements this by shifting part of monitoring and disease management directly into patients’ and families’ daily lives. In recent decades, technological advancements have profoundly transformed the ways in which teenagers engage with the Internet and mobile devices. By 2023, over 95% of adolescents in developed countries owned a cell phone, underscoring the widespread availability and use of these tools. 29 , 30 Smartphones and other mobile devices have emerged as powerful platforms for health communication, offering new opportunities in public health interventions. These devices appear particularly useful for disease prevention, symptom monitoring, and post-cancer follow-up, where they may play an important role. Colorful, interactive interfaces combined with user-friendly design make health applications especially engaging for children and adolescents. The ability to quickly access health data and communicate with healthcare providers further improves the convenience and effectiveness of health monitoring, ultimately contributing to better QOL for patients. 53 , 54 The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the concept of mHealth, which refers to the use of mobile technologies such as smartphones, tablets, and other wireless devices to improve access to and the efficiency of health services. mHealth involves applications and tools that disseminate health information, monitor patient health, support disease management, and strengthen communication between patients and healthcare providers. Its primary objective is not only to address health challenges but also to optimize outcomes through the innovative use of mobile technologies. 31 , 55 Within the framework of mHealth, patients can be monitored and medical examinations scheduled through smartphone apps and devices equipped with wireless sensors that record essential vital signs, such as blood glucose levels and blood pressure. The data collected by these devices can be stored and transmitted from home, facilitating patient self-monitoring, enhancing adherence to medical recommendations, and positively influencing patients’ psychosocial well-being. 25 mHealth systems can expand access to healthcare services across different locations and times, although barriers such as connectivity and device availability remain. They also enhance communication between patients and healthcare providers and increase access to high-quality health information. 30 In the context of cancer treatment, these applications hold significant potential by supporting patients in managing their condition and recovery, while simultaneously reducing the burden on medical staff. 31 Despite its numerous advantages, mHealth technology also encounters several challenges. These include limited battery life of mobile devices, insufficient evidence supporting the effectiveness of certain applications, and difficulties in ensuring that data remains up-to-date and secure. 25 , 26 Nevertheless, the advancement of mHealth, particularly within the field of oncology, holds considerable promise. Applications designed to support adolescents with cancer—by enhancing their knowledge of the disease, improving treatment management, and facilitating access to social support illustrate the emerging potential of this technology. 27 , 28 Future research should prioritize increasing the generalizability of findings, testing these applications across diverse populations, and integrating them with electronic medical record systems. This trajectory in mHealth development can significantly enhance the quality of healthcare and improve the QOL for patients, especially younger ones, by providing them with modern and effective tools for health management. 28 Collectively, the evidence indicates that mHealth applications are generally acceptable and engaging for adolescents, offering opportunities for symptom tracking, treatment adherence, and psychosocial support. 22–25 , 27 , 28 , 53 , 54 , 56–59 Their interactive design and near-universal availability of smartphones make them accessible to a wide range of patients, including those in resource-limited settings. 29 , 30 However, despite promising findings in feasibility and pilot studies, rigorous randomized trials and robust cost-effectiveness evaluations are still scarce. 24 , 31 In addition, several studies reported limited long-term adherence or inconclusive improvements in objective clinical outcomes, indicating that feasibility does not always translate into sustained clinical benefit. Data privacy, digital literacy, and disparities in access to technology remain critical challenges that must be addressed to prevent widening health inequalities. 25 , 26 Overall, mHealth holds significant potential to complement clinical care in pediatric oncology, but its future value will depend on stronger evidence and sustainable integration into healthcare systems. Technologies (Equipment) Whereas mHealth is centered on mobile devices and apps, broader e-health technologies extend these functions by integrating online platforms, wearables, and EHRs into pediatric oncology care. E-health, though defined variably across medical disciplines, broadly refers to the utilization of Internet-based technologies in healthcare delivery. Its scope encompasses telehealth (telemedicine), online platforms-such as those dedicated to education, coping interventions, and social networking-and m-health, which employs mobile applications and wireless technologies for health monitoring, therapy management, and patient education. 11 These innovations have become increasingly common in pediatric oncology, suggesting improved access to essential health information and support services. Data indicate that more than half of the global population now uses the Internet, creating new opportunities for clinicians, researchers, and patients to advance diagnosis, treatment, and education in pediatric cancer care. 31 An essential component of pediatric oncology care is educating children and their caregivers about cancer and its treatment. Organizations such as the Children’s Oncology Group and the National Cancer Institute provide online resources that give families rapid access to medical information, research updates, and coping strategies. Online support platforms also serve pediatric cancer patients and adolescents by offering chat rooms, moderated forums, and support groups that facilitate sharing experiences and peer engagement. 60 Digital tools further allow electronic monitoring of critical health parameters, including medication adherence, 32 physical activity, 33 and dietary habits. 34 These platforms also provide precise and timely health records for childhood cancer survivors, ensuring continuity of care and informed medical decision-making. 61 , 62 Moreover, online interventions and educational programs have been shown to enhance the QOL of children with cancer, support mental health, and foster the maintenance of healthy behaviors. 35–37 Despite their transformative potential for accessibility, quality, and efficiency, e-health solutions pose several challenges. Processing medical data, a highly sensitive category of information, raises concerns about security, privacy, and user trust, requiring strong safeguards and regulatory oversight. 38 Although innovative systems such as cloud computing improve efficiency, facilitate data access, and reduce costs, they also introduce significant cybersecurity risks. 39 Robust security measures and advanced encryption technologies are therefore essential to mitigate these risks and maximize the benefits of digital health systems. 40 Another critical challenge in e-health adoption is the reliance on user engagement. While the Internet provides extensive opportunities for personalized health information dissemination and patient empowerment, the effectiveness of these interventions depends on user motivation, technological literacy, and acceptance. 36 Furthermore, integrating e-health solutions into healthcare systems requires continuous professional development, as healthcare providers must remain adept at operating within an increasingly digitized medical landscape. 63 Despite these barriers, the continued advancement of e-health technologies particularly in the field of pediatric oncology holds considerable promise for enhancing information accessibility, patient support, and overall care quality for pediatric patients. Taken together, the available evidence shows that e-health tools have strengthened education for patients and families, 60 enabled real-time monitoring of adherence, activity, and diet, 32–34 and supported survivorship care with timely health records. 61 , 62 Online interventions and digital programs have been associated with improvements in psychosocial functioning, though findings remain inconsistent across studies. 35–37 At the same time, persistent concerns regarding privacy, data protection, and cybersecurity risks underline the importance of strong safeguards. 38–40 Moreover, effective adoption depends not only on technological availability but also on sustained user engagement and provider readiness. 36 , 63 Overall, e-health technologies represent a promising but still unevenly integrated set of solutions, which may require further standardization and regulation before broader implementation in pediatric oncology practice. Precision Medicine While e-health solutions focus mainly on communication, monitoring, and patient education, precision medicine represents a more individualized application of technology, using genomic profiling and molecular data to guide therapy. The progress of digitization in recent years has contributed to the development of a new branch of the use of new technologies in the treatment of children undergoing oncological treatment - precision medicine. The assumptions of this novel approach are based on the principles of maximum possible individualization of care and treatment. This is particularly important in the analysis of molecular and genomic therapies, reducing the risk of short- and long-term effects of standard treatment regimens. 41 A central component of precision medicine is molecular profiling, which enables the selection of therapies tailored to narrower groups of patients with specific mutations. Ongoing research also explores the use of genomics in prevention, for example by assessing the presence of cancer predisposition syndromes when germline abnormalities are detected. 6 A key element of precision medicine is the development of methods for rapid genomic analysis, supported by novel informatics tools and bioinformatics algorithms to prioritize therapeutic targets. The establishment of international databases and registries itself depends on the use of advanced digital technologies. A notable example of good practice is the prospective INFORM (INDIvidualized Therapy For Relapsed Malignancies in Childhood) Registry, which collects data on all enrolled patients regardless of clinical status, molecular alterations, or treatment received. This contrasts with traditional clinical trials that usually focus on narrowly defined patient groups treated with a specific drug. The purpose of such an exercise is to identify subgroups of patients likely to benefit from a given targeted treatment (predictive factor analysis), as well as to identify potential future genetic therapeutic targets for clinical trials. Each stage of database development is based on interval meetings of international research groups via videoconferencing. In addition, genetic profiling enables the early identification of hereditary cancer predispositions not previously recognized in a patient. In the INFORM study, targeted treatment was administered to 20 children, achieving a median progression-free survival of 204 days nearly 175% longer than in the other 499 patients treated with standard therapy. These results are encouraging, although further research and analysis are required before precision medicine can be more broadly implemented. 42 Other examples of precision medicine in the pediatric population are MATCH, MOSCATO-01, ZERO Childhood Cancer Program. 41 , 43 Collectively, these studies suggest that precision medicine enables more individualized therapeutic strategies through molecular profiling and genomic analysis. 41 The INFORM registry, for example, has shown that matching patients to targeted therapies can improve progression-free survival compared to conventional approaches. 42 At the same time, implementation remains limited by high costs, restricted access to advanced genomic testing, and the need for international collaboration. 41 , 42 Ethical challenges, such as managing incidental genetic findings and ensuring informed consent in children, add further complexity. 6 Thus, while precision medicine holds great promise for transforming pediatric oncology, its widespread application will require further research, infrastructure development, and ethical guidance. However, much of the available evidence derives from highly specialized centers and selected high-risk populations, which may limit generalizability. Moreover, several studies are based on registry analyses or non-randomized designs, underscoring the need for further controlled and long-term evaluations. Comparative Analysis of e-Health Methods This analysis compares mobile applications used in pediatric haemato-oncology and pediatric oncology. The results, summarized in Table 2 , provide insights into the diversity of e-health solutions. The selection of apps for analysis was guided by the following criteria: the diversity of applications (eg. pain management, symptom monitoring, improving adherence), the age of participants (from children to adolescents, allowing the usability of apps in different age groups to be assessed), and the accessibility and effectiveness of the apps (assessed on the basis of scientific evidence, such as ease of use, adherence rates and impact on patients’ QOL). The results highlight the growing potential of mobile technologies in cancer care, but also the importance of further research to optimize their use. 22–24 , 56–59 Table 2. Overview of Mobile Applications Used in Pediatric Hematooncology and Oncology Author(s) Country Primary Outcome(s) Sample Study Design Follow-Up Duration App Name Key Findings and Methodological Limitations Jibb et al 22 Canada Pain intensity, pain interference, HRQL N = 40 adolescents with pediatric cancer (various types), aged 12–18 years 28-day pretest–posttest single-group study The 22-item valid and reliable pain assessment twice daily in the morning and evening for 28 days at times they specified. Pain Squad+ HRQoL improved; pain intensity and interference decreased; no significant change in self-efficacy observed; experimenter bias; social desirability bias; pre-post study- lack of randomization. Wu et al 23 United States Adherence to oral medications N = 23 adolescents and young adults (aged 15–29 years) with various cancers 12-week pre-/post-test single-group design A 12-week pre-post pilot study (before and after the intervention) in which, after a 4-week baseline observation, participants tested the Dosecast medication monitoring application for 8 weeks. Dosecast Most participants used the app; over half reported timely medication intake; app rated as easy and helpful; Small sample size; Geographic and ethnic homogeneity; Lack of assessment of long-term effects; Unexplained mechanisms of change; Lack of differentiation between drug types. Tomlinson et al 24 Canada Symptom assessment (oral mucositis monitoring) Phase I: N = 10; Phase II: N = 40 children aged 8–18 years with various cancers Two-phase design assessing app presentation and final usability No long-term follow-up (cross-sectional study) eChIMES High usability and comprehension; app deemed appropriate for mucositis evaluation by 92% of participants; Limited territorial scope; Small sample size; Lack of long-term follow-up. Baggott et al 56 United States Symptom assessment (pain, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, sleep) N = 10 adolescents and young adults (aged 13–21 years) with various cancers 3-week trial using electronic symptom diary 2 weeks of technical testing conducted by the research team; 3 weeks of daily symptom reporting by patients eDiary (specific name not provided, referred to as an electronic symptom diary) >90% adherence to symptom reporting; users found the diary helpful; high variability in symptom reporting; Small sample size; Short observation period; Impact of high rewards; Lack of cultural universality; Lack of evaluation of non-financial methods. Macpherson et al 57 United States Symptom cluster assessment (co-occurring symptoms) N = 72 adolescents and young adults (aged 13–29 years) with various cancers App evaluation during chemotherapy cycle, followed by questionnaire 24–96 hours after the first dose of chemotherapy in a given cycle; a single (stationary) measurement followed by completion of an acceptability questionnaire. C-SCAT High feasibility and acceptability; enhanced communication and symptom tracking; applicable to other groups; Impact of pharmacotherapy; Cognitive barriers; Pilot nature. Kock et al 58 Germany Long-term follow-up compliance, patient empowerment, aftercare management N = 13 former childhood cancer patients with various cancers (aged 15–17 years) and 9 relatives (aged 40–54 years) Evaluation through standardized questionnaires A 4-month usability study based on interviews with 13 former patients and 9 relatives. Aftercare App Positive effect on follow-up compliance; improved access to structured aftercare information; Narrow test group; Limited to selected diseases; No assessment of actual impact; Poor quality of feedback data; Lack of advanced security features. Rodgers et al 59 United States Symptom management (related to eating difficulties, nausea, appetite loss) N = 16 adolescents (aged 11–18 years) post HSCT Repeated measures design at three time points post-hospital discharge Measurements of app acceptability and usability were made at three specific points: 20, 40 and 60 days after transplantation. EAT! App was feasible and well-accepted; usage declined over time, indicating need for improved long-term design’ Small sample size; Geographic homogeneity; Lack of a control group; Short evaluation period; Reliance on self-reports. Open in a new tab Abbreviations : HRQL, Health-Related Quality of Life; C-SCAT, Computerized Symptom Capture Tool; HSCT, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Broader Considerations Although digital health technologies demonstrate considerable promise, several cross-cutting challenges remain. Equity and access are unevenly distributed: while telehealth and mHealth improve reach for families in rural or underserved settings, 20 , 29 , 30 barriers such as limited internet connectivity, device availability, and digital literacy continue to restrict participation. 25 , 26 Ethical considerations are also central, ranging from data security and privacy concerns in e-health systems 38 , 40 to the complexity of informed consent and incidental genetic findings in precision medicine. 6 Furthermore, the current evidence base is dominated by short-term feasibility and pilot studies, leaving the long-term effectiveness, sustainability, and health-economic impact of these tools insufficiently established. 13 , 31 , 42 Addressing these gaps will be essential to ensure that innovations in pediatric oncology contribute to safe, equitable, and lasting improvements in care. Limitations and Future Directions This quasi-systematic review, while providing a comprehensive overview of emerging digital health technologies in pediatric oncology and hemato-oncology, has several limitations. The inclusion of heterogeneous study designs-including pilot, qualitative, and narrative studies—limits the ability to draw high-level, generalizable conclusions comparable to those from randomized controlled trials. The review was restricted to English-language publications from 2018–2024, potentially excluding relevant studies in other languages or from earlier periods that may offer important clinical insights. The restriction to English-language publications introduces potential selection bias. As grey literature was not systematically included, publication bias cannot be excluded. Considerable heterogeneity across age groups, disease types, technological interventions, and study designs limits direct comparability of outcomes. Furthermore, the structured 1–5 scoring system applied in the evaluation framework was based on qualitative consensus and may involve subjective interpretation. Finally, the limited number of high-quality randomized controlled trials restricts the strength of causal inferences. Moreover, a formal risk-of-bias assessment tool and prospective protocol registration were not applied, consistent with the quasi-systematic design of this review. This should be considered when interpreting the strength and generalizability of the synthesized evidence. Study populations were often disease-specific and heterogeneous in terms of age, clinical status, and digital literacy, which may affect the generalizability of findings. Many of the technologies evaluated remain in experimental or pilot stages, limiting evidence on long-term effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and integration into routine clinical practice. Ethical, legal, and data privacy considerations-particularly regarding genomic data and informed consent in pediatric populations-also remain incompletely addressed. Future research should prioritize high-quality, long-term trials to evaluate efficacy, safety, and sustainability of digital health interventions. Integration with healthcare infrastructure, development of standards for interoperability, and strategies to reduce disparities in access are essential. Additionally, ethical frameworks and guidance on data management and informed consent must be strengthened. Digital platforms for education and psychosocial support represent promising areas for further development, with potential to enhance patient and caregiver engagement. In summary, while digital health technologies hold significant promise to improve pediatric oncology care, rigorous research, infrastructure development, and ethical safeguards are critical to fully realize their potential in clinical practice. Conclusion The rapid development of digital health technologies has substantially influenced the management of pediatric oncological and hematooncological disorders. Telehealth has demonstrated improved continuity of care, high satisfaction among patients and caregivers, and outcomes frequently comparable to in-person consultations, particularly in follow-up care and cross-center collaboration. mHealth applications designed for symptom tracking and medication adherence have shown high feasibility and user engagement, with adherence to symptom reporting and medication monitoring often exceeding 80% in pilot and feasibility studies. Precision medicine initiatives, including genomic profiling programs such as INFORM, have reported clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival among selected high-risk pediatric populations, highlighting the potential of targeted therapeutic strategies. However, the overall strength of evidence remains uneven across domains. Many telehealth and mHealth studies are characterized by small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, and predominantly observational or feasibility designs. Long-term effectiveness data, standardized reporting of effect sizes, and comprehensive cost-effectiveness evaluations remain limited. In several cases, improvements in feasibility and engagement have not consistently translated into robust or sustained clinical outcome benefits. Similarly, while precision medicine represents a transformative approach, its implementation is constrained by high costs, restricted access to advanced genomic testing, infrastructural demands, and the complexity of managing incidental genetic findings in pediatric populations. The integration of digital health solutions into routine pediatric oncology practice therefore requires not only technological innovation but also regulatory clarity and ethical safeguards. Particular attention must be paid to pediatric-specific consent frameworks, data protection standards, genomic information governance, and strategies aimed at reducing digital inequities. Future research should prioritize multicenter randomized trials with longer follow-up periods, transparent risk-of-bias assessment, standardized outcome measures, and clearer reporting of effect sizes. Policy-level initiatives should focus on equitable access, interoperability with existing healthcare systems, and sustainable financing models. Digital health in pediatric oncology holds substantial transformative potential; however, its safe, equitable, and evidence-based implementation will depend on methodological rigor, regulatory adaptation, and coordinated system-level integration. Funding Statement This research was funded by statutory funds of the Medical University of Lublin. Abbreviations IT, information technology; mHealth, mobile health; AI, artificial intelligence; USA, United States of America; PROs, patient-reported outcomes; QOL, quality of life; MeSH, Medical Subject Headings; RCTs, Randomized controlled trials; PEO, Population, Exposure, Outcome; EHRs, electronic health records; telehealth, Telemedicine; ERN, TransplantChild European Reference Network for Pediatric Transplantation; IIPT, intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment; ACS, American Cancer Society; NCI, National Cancer Institute; WHO, World Health Organization; INFORM, INDIvidualized Therapy For Relapsed Malignancies in Childhood. Disclosure The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this work. References 1. Ehrhardt MJ, Krull KR, Bhakta N. et al. Improving quality and quantity of life for childhood cancer survivors globally in the twenty-first century. Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2023;20(10):678–18. doi: 10.1038/s41571-023-00802-w [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Bhatia S, Tonorezos ES, Landier W. Clinical Care for People Who Survive Childhood Cancer: a Review. JAMA . 2023;330(12):1175–1186. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.16875 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Youlden DR, Baade PD, Moore AS, Pole JD, Valery PC, Aitken JF. Childhood cancer survival and avoided deaths in Australia, 1983–2016. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol . 2023;37(1):81–91. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12895 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Chengoden R, Victor N, Huynh-The T, et al. Metaverse for Healthcare: a Survey on Potential Applications, Challenges and Future Directions. IEEE Access . 2023;11:12765–12795. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3241628 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Tian S, Yang W, Grange JML, Wang P, Huang W, Ye Z. Smart healthcare: making medical care more intelligent. Glob Health J . 2019;3(3):62–65. doi: 10.1016/j.glohj.2019.07.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Vo KT, Parsons DW, Seibel NL. Precision Medicine in Pediatric Oncology. Surg Oncol Clin N Am . 2020;29(1):63–72. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2019.08.005 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Simon JDHP, Hooijman IS, Van Gorp M, et al. Digital health tools for pain monitoring in pediatric oncology: a scoping review and qualitative assessment of barriers and facilitators of implementation. Support Care Cancer . 2023;31(3):175. doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-07629-2 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Bradford N, Slater P, Fielden P, et al. Care at Your Fingertips: codesign, Development, and Evaluation of the Oncology Hub App for Remote Symptom Management in Pediatric Oncology. JCO Clin Cancer Inform . 2023;7(7):e2200134. doi: 10.1200/CCI.22.00134 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Aapro M, Bossi P, Dasari A, et al. Digital health for optimal supportive care in oncology: benefits, limits, and future perspectives. Support Care Cancer . 2020;28(10):4589–4612. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05539-1 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. d’Halluin A, Costa M, Morgiève M, Sebbane D. Attitudes of Children, Adolescents, and Their Parents Toward Digital Health Interventions: scoping Review. J Med Internet Res . 2023;25:e43102. doi: 10.2196/43102 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. da Fonseca MH, Kovaleski F, Picinin CT, Pedroso B, Rubbo P. E-Health Practices and Technologies: a Systematic Review from 2014 to 2019. Healthcare . 2021;9(9):1192. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9091192 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Diaz-Miron J, Ogle S, Kaizer A, Acker SN, Rove KO, Inge TH. Surgeon, patient, and caregiver perspective of pediatric surgical telemedicine in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Pediatr Surg Int . 2022;38(2):241–248. doi: 10.1007/s00383-021-05016-8 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Kermani F, Orooji A, Sheikhtaheri A. Teleoncology for children with cancer: a scoping review on applications and outcomes. Int J Med Inform . 2020;139:104118. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104118 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Damico NJ, Deshane A, Kharouta M, et al. Telemedicine Use and Satisfaction Among Radiation Oncologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic: evaluation of Current Trends and Future Opportunities. Adv Radiat Oncol . 2022;7(2):100835. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100835 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Aydemir S, Ocak S, Saygılı S, et al. Telemedicine Applications in a Tertiary Pediatric Hospital in Turkey During COVID-19 Pandemic. Telemed J E Health . 2021;27(10):1180–1187. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0381 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Shah AC, Badawy SM. Telemedicine in Pediatrics: systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. JMIR Pediatr Parent . 2021;4(1):e22696. doi: 10.2196/22696 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Elder AJ, Alazawi H, Shafaq F, Ayyad A, Hazin R. Teleoncology: novel Approaches for Improving Cancer Care in North America. Cureus . 2023;15(8):e43562. doi: 10.7759/cureus.43562 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Bento SP, Stewart C, Conroy C, et al. The Telehealth Tradeoff: a Multimethod Study of the Benefits and Challenges Associated With Maintaining Treatment Outcomes Using a Hybrid Model of Pediatric Intensive Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment. Clin J Pain . 2023;39(7):307–318. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001120 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Miller KA, Baird J, Lira J, et al. The Use of Telemedicine for Home-Based Palliative Care for Children With Serious Illness: a Scoping Review. J Pain Symptom Manage . 2021;62(3):619–636.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.12.004 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Handayani K, Veening M, Kors WA, et al. Pediatric oncology-hematology outreach: evaluation of patient consultations by teleconferences between Indonesian and Dutch academic hospitals. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol . 2018;3(4):102–108. doi: 10.1016/j.phoj.2018.09.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Esposito S, Rosafio C, Antodaro F, et al. Use of Telemedicine Healthcare Systems in Children and Adolescents with Chronic Disease or in Transition Stages of Life: consensus Document of the Italian Society of Telemedicine (SIT), of the Italian Society of Preventive and Social Pediatrics (SIPPS), of the Italian Society of Pediatric Primary Care (SICuPP), of the Italian Federation of Pediatric Doctors (FIMP) and of the Syndicate of Family Pediatrician Doctors (SIMPeF). J Pers Med . 2023;13(2):235. doi: 10.3390/jpm13020235 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Jibb LA, Stevens BJ, Nathan PC, et al. Perceptions of Adolescents With Cancer Related to a Pain Management App and Its Evaluation: qualitative Study Nested Within a Multicenter Pilot Feasibility Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth . 2018;6:e9319. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Wu YP, Linder LA, Kanokvimankul P, et al. Use of a Smartphone Application for Prompting Oral Medication Adherence Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum . 2018;45(1):69–76. doi: 10.1188/18.ONF.69-76 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Tomlinson D, Hesser T, Maloney AM, Ross S, Naqvi A, Sung L. Development and initial evaluation of electronic Children’s International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (eChIMES) for children with cancer. Support Care Cancer . 2014;22(1):115–119. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1953-x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Ramsey WA, Heidelberg RE, Gilbert AM, Heneghan MB, Badawy SM, Alberts NM. eHealth and mHealth interventions in pediatric cancer: a systematic review of interventions across the cancer continuum. Psychooncology . 2020;29(1):17–37. doi: 10.1002/pon.5280 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Ana FA, Loreto MS, José LMM, Pablo SM, María Pilar MJ, Myriam SLA. Mobile applications in oncology: a systematic review of health science databases. Int Int J Med Inform . 2020;133:104001. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104001 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Wesley KM, Fizur PJ. A review of mobile applications to help adolescent and young adult cancer patients. Adolesc Health Med Ther . 2015;6:141–148. doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S69209 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Devine KA, Viola AS, Coups EJ, Wu YP. Digital Health Interventions for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. JCO Clin Cancer Inform . 2018;2(2):1–15. doi: 10.1200/CCI.17.00138 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Anderson M, Faverio M, Gottfried J. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2023. 2023. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/12/11/teens-social-media-and-technology-2023/ . Accessed 15, Apr 2025. 30. Silva BMC, Rodrigues JJPC, de la Torre Díez I, López-Coronado M, Saleem K. Mobile-health: a review of current state in 2015. J Biomed Inform . 2015;56:265–272. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.06.003 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. International Telecommunication Union. Measuring the Information Society Report . Geneva: International Telecommunication Union; 2018. Vol. 1. [ Google Scholar ] 32. Rohan JM, Drotar D, Alderfer M, et al. Electronic monitoring of medication adherence in early maintenance phase treatment for pediatric leukemia and lymphoma: identifying patterns of nonadherence. J Pediatr Psychol . 2015;40(1):75–84. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst093 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Rabin C, Dunsiger S, Ness KK, Marcus BH. Internet-Based Physical Activity Intervention Targeting Young Adult Cancer Survivors. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol . 2011;1(4):188–194. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2011.0040 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Berg CJ, Stratton E, Giblin J, Esiashvili N, Mertens A. Pilot results of an online intervention targeting health promoting behaviors among young adult cancer survivors. Psychooncology . 2014;23(10):1196–1199. doi: 10.1002/pon.3526 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Sigurdardottir AO, Svavarsdottir EK, Rayens MK, Gokun Y. The impact of a web-based educational and support intervention on parents’ perception of their children’s cancer quality of life: an exploratory study. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs . 2014;31(3):154–165. doi: 10.1177/1043454213515334 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Mohr DC, Burns MN, Schueller SM, Clarke G, Klinkman M. Behavioral Intervention Technologies: evidence review and recommendations for future research. Gen Hosp Psychiatry . 2010;35(4):332–338. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.03.008 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Cushing CC, Steele RG. A meta-analytic review of eHealth interventions for pediatric health promoting and maintaining behaviors. J Pediatr Psychol . 2010;35(9):937–949. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsq023 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Wilkowska W, Ziefle M. Privacy and data security in E-health: requirements from the user’s perspective. Health Inform J . 2012;18(3):191–201. doi: 10.1177/1460458212442933 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Al-Issa Y, Ottom MA, Tamrawi A. eHealth Cloud Security Challenges: a Survey. J Healthc Eng . 2019;75:16035. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Chenthara S, Ahmed K, Wang H, Whittaker F. Security and Privacy-Preserving Challenges of e-Health Solutions in Cloud Computing. IEEE Access . 2019;7:74361–74382. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2919982 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Forrest SJ, Geoerger B, Janeway KA. Precision medicine in pediatric oncology. Curr Opin Pediatr . 2018;30(1):17. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000570 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. van Tilburg CM, Pfaff E, Pajtler KW, et al. The Pediatric Precision Oncology INFORM Registry: clinical Outcome and Benefit for Patients with Very High-Evidence Targets. Cancer Discov . 2021;11(11):2764–2779. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-0094 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. DuBois SG, Corson LB, Stegmaier K, Janeway KA. Ushering in the next generation of precision trials for pediatric cancer. Science . 2019;363(6432):1175–1181. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw4153 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Shah AC, O’Dwyer LC, Badawy SM. Telemedicine in Malignant and Nonmalignant Hematology: systematic Review of Pediatric and Adult Studies. JMIR mHealth and uHealth . 2021;9(7):e29619. doi: 10.2196/29619 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Mitra A, Veerakone R, Li K, Nix T, Hashikawa A, Mahajan P. Telemedicine in paediatric emergency care: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare . 2023;29(8):579–590. doi: 10.1177/1357633X211010106 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Shirke MM, Shaikh SA, Harky A. Implications of Telemedicine in Oncology during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Acta Biomed . 2020;91(3):e2020022. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i3.9849 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Sirintrapun SJ, Lopez AM. Telemedicine in Cancer Care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book . 2018;38(38):540–545. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200141 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Yang E, Dornisch A, Nerb L, et al. A Multicomponent Telehealth Intervention to Improve Oncofertility Care Delivery Among Young Cancer Patients: a Pilot Study. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol . 2023;12(2):241–249. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2021.0224 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Dornisch A, Yang EH, Gruspe J, et al. Theory-Guided Development of Fertility Care Implementation Strategies for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol . 2021;10(5):512–520. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2020.0156 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Thornton CP, Ruble K, Jacobson LA. Education for Children With Chronic Illness: moving Forward in Online and Virtual Learning. JAMA Pediatrics . 2022;176(4):341–342. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5643 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Martiniuk A, Challinor J, Arora RS, Handayani SA, Lam C. Digital solutions to facilitate education, training and professional support for paediatric oncology and other health professionals in rural and other low-resource settings. Health Educ . 2021;122:232–259. [ Google Scholar ] 52. Kaka A, Shama W, Lucchetta S, et al. Virtual support groups in pediatric hematology/oncology during COVID-19: lessons learned from the SickKids experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer . 2021;68:e29378. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Mehdizadeh H, Asadi F, Azim M, Eslam N, Emami H. Smartphone apps to help children and adolescents with cancer and their families: a scoping review. Acta Oncologica . 2019;58(7):1003–1014. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1588474 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 54. Riva S, Mazzocco K, Pravettoni G. Better outcomes for cancer patients using telemedicine: health-related quality of life (HrQoL) and empowerment. In: Graschew G, Roine R, editors. Tele-Oncology . Cham: Springer; 2015:23–37. [ Google Scholar ] 55. World Health Organization. mHealth: use of appropriate digital technologies for public health. Report by the Director-General. Seventy-first World Health Assembly, A71/20. 2018. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_20-en.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fapps.who.int%2Fgb%2Febwha%2Fpdf_files%2FWHA71%2FA71_20 . Accessed Apr 25, 2025. 56. Baggott C, Gibson F, Coll B, Kletter R, Zeltzer P, Miaskowski C. Initial Evaluation of an Electronic Symptom Diary for Adolescents with Cancer. JMIR Research Protocols . 2012;1(2):e2175. doi: 10.2196/resprot.2175 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 57. Macpherson CF, Linder LA, Ameringer S, Erickson J, Stegenga K, Woods NF. Feasibility and acceptability of an iPad application to explore symptom clusters in adolescents and young adults with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer . 2014;61(11):1996–2003. doi: 10.1002/pbc.25152 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 58. Kock AK, Kaya RS, Müller C, Andersen B, Langer T, Ingenerf J. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Mobile Application for Patient Empowerment and Management of Long-Term Follow-Up after Childhood Cancer. Klin Padiatr . 2015;227(03):166–170. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1548840 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 59. Rodgers CC, Krance R, Street RLJ, Hockenberry MJ. Feasibility of a Symptom Management Intervention for Adolescents Recovering From a Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant. Cancer Nurs . 2013;36(5):394. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e31829629b5 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 60. Karlson CW, Palermo TM. eHealth and mHealth in pediatric oncology. In: Abrams AN, Muriel AC, Wiener L, editors. Pediatric Psychosocial Oncology: Textbook for Multidisciplinary Care . Cham: Springer; 2016:351–365. [ Google Scholar ] 61. Horowitz ME, Fordis M, Krause S, McKellar J, Poplack DG. Passport for Care: implementing the Survivorship Care Plan. J Oncol Pract . 2009;5(3):110–112. doi: 10.1200/JOP.0934405 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 62. Blaauwbroek R, Barf HA, Groenier KH, et al. Family doctor-driven follow-up for adult childhood cancer survivors supported by a web-based survivor care plan. J Cancer Surviv . 2012;6(2):163–171. doi: 10.1007/s11764-011-0207-5 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 63. Edirippulige S, Smith AC, Wickramasinghe S, Armfield NR. Examining the Influence of E-Health Education on Professional Practice. J Med Syst . 2018;42(11):215. doi: 10.1007/s10916-018-1084-5 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Articles from Cancer Management and Research are provided here courtesy of Dove Press ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.5 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top