Strategies to promote the dissemination of psychosocial digital health resources for those affected by cancer: scoping review - 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 Support Care Cancer . 2026 Apr 15;34(5):427. doi: 10.1007/s00520-026-10657-3 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Strategies to promote the dissemination of psychosocial digital health resources for those affected by cancer: scoping review Isabel Ronan Isabel Ronan 1 School of Computer Science and Information Technology, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, T12K8AF Ireland Find articles by Isabel Ronan 1, ✉ , Olinda Santin Olinda Santin 2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT71NN UK Find articles by Olinda Santin 2 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Computer Science and Information Technology, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, T12K8AF Ireland 2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT71NN UK ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Nov 25; Accepted 2026 Apr 5; Issue date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13083495 PMID: 41984262 Abstract Purpose The objective of this review is to map the evidence on dissemination strategies employed to promote awareness and uptake of psychosocial digital health resources for those affected by cancer while also addressing the barriers and facilitators to effective dissemination. Methods A scoping review was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) protocol. A wide range of keywords was used to form search terms for four databases, namely MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System onLINE (MEDLINE), Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, and PsycInfo. Results We screened 5045 articles for inclusion after the initial automated removal of duplicate and ineligible items. A total of 4691 articles were excluded during title and abstract screening. A further 324 articles were excluded during the full-text screening stage. We included 30 articles in our analysis. Bibliometric analysis indicated that many low-to-middle-income countries are under-represented in the literature. Caregivers were seldom targeted in dissemination strategies. Other key themes emerging from our analysis include the need to close geographical, cultural, and digital divides and to increase the trust and credibility of interventions. Conclusion This paper presents the first review consolidating research on psychosocial digital resource dissemination targeting those affected by cancer. These findings are of relevance to both oncology experts and researchers, who may use this review to reflect on how best to disseminate developed digital resources to cancer-affected populations. When considering the dissemination of an online resource in the future, researchers should focus on creating co-designed digital interventions for caregivers and targeting more diverse populations using both traditional and digital dissemination materials. Keywords: Digital resource, Cancer, Dissemination, Oncology, Technology Introduction Cancer is currently one of the most common contributors to premature mortality in the world; the number of global cancer patients is expected to double over the next 50 years due to our ageing, growing population [ 1 ]. Cancer care also comes with rampant inequalities; there are different levels of treatment and resources available for those in various parts of the world [ 2 , 3 ]. To combat the growing population affected by cancer, digital health solutions have been proposed to help support those providing and benefiting from oncology care [ 4 , 5 ]. Digital health is the use of telecommunications or digital technology to improve healthcare [ 4 ]. In a world where cancer resources are becoming increasingly overstretched and under-resourced, a move towards digital interventions is necessary to meet the growing demand for cancer treatment and information, while also improving equitable access to care. Within the digital resource landscape, psychosocial interventions are also becoming increasingly important. These interventions encompass a range of services and therapies to educate and console those living with a cancer diagnosis; such care can improve well-being and help in meeting the psychological, social, communication, and information-related needs of cancer patients, caregivers, and survivors [ 6 ]. Although the design of a psychosocial digital resource is very important in successful research, dissemination is often equally important. Dissemination is an active approach to the encouragement of intervention use via channels and planned strategies [ 7 ]. If a resource is not disseminated properly, then it will not reach the population it is designed to help. Digital resources have the potential to enable healthcare access and literacy; however, issues surrounding health technology adoption are common, with uptake in these new resources remaining low [ 8 , 9 ]. Additionally, details on how to implement new interventions are often not adequately reported and indexed, leading to difficulties for both researchers and oncologists in deciding how best to disseminate key digital information to cancer-affected populations [ 10 ]. Research surrounding dissemination practices for psychosocial cancer resources is not well investigated; previous reviews have focused on trying to summarise such practices for general chronic diseases, rehabilitation, and clinician-level tools [ 9 , 11 , 12 ]. General dissemination strategies for patients and caregivers have been explored, along with the use of specific technology types [ 13 – 16 ]. Additionally, reviews have been conducted on digital health measures within specific locations [ 17 , 18 ]. However, the dissemination of psychosocial digital cancer resources comes with its own set of disease-specific and care-specific challenges, which are not covered in the aforementioned reviews. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, our review is the first of its kind to focus exclusively on the subject of psychosocial digital resource dissemination for those affected by cancer. We chose to undertake a scoping review due to the broad nature of the psychosocial cancer digital resource landscape. The purpose of this scoping review is to map the evidence on dissemination strategies employed to promote awareness and uptake of relevant digital health resources in cancer care and caregiving, while addressing the barriers and facilitators to effective dissemination among cancer-affected populations. In this paper, we aim to consolidate past work, highlight dissemination challenges, and examine areas for future research. The research questions within this review were chosen to encompass the wide range of possible materials that could be considered within the cancer digital resource dissemination research landscape. What dissemination strategies have been used to promote cancer-related psychosocial digital health resources? What facilitators to dissemination are described in the literature? What barriers to dissemination are described in the literature? This review’s main contribution to the literature is a contemporary collation of research regarding the dissemination of psychosocial digital resources for cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers. This review is of interest to any oncologists or researchers investigating how best to implement cancer-related psychosocial digital resources either in their own practice, in general medical settings, or within academia. Methods This review was carried out from August to October 2025. Zotero and Microsoft Excel were used for reference management and data organisation, respectively [ 19 , 20 ]. Searching and screening were undertaken by the first author, with subsequent study selection being conducted by both authors. Protocol and registration We drafted our protocol using the PRISMA-ScR. We did not register our protocol. PICOC criteria We used the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Context (PICOC) criteria to ensure our review remained focused on our chosen research questions. Our population was people affected by cancer; this population encompasses cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers. As outlined in Table 1 , we performed a term breakdown to use in formulating search strings within our chosen databases based on the PICOC criteria. Table 1. PICOC criteria—term breakdown Criterion Keywords Synonyms Population Cancer Carcinoma, leukaemia, lymphoma, malignancy, malignant, myeloma, neoplasm, oncology, sarcoma, tumor, tumour People affected by cancer Care, care giver, caregiver, carer, family, partner, patient, relative, spouse, support person, supportive, survivor Intervention Dissemination strategy Adoption, advertising, awareness, campaign, co-design, communication, strategy, diffusion, educational materials, engagement, implementation, knowledge mobilisation, knowledge translation, marketing, mass media, outreach, promotion, scale-up, spread, uptake Digital health Digital health, SMS, app, application, chatbot, decision aid, digital intervention, digital program, digital resource, digital tool, eHealth, internet-based, mHealth, online intervention, online program, online resource, online support group, online tool, platform, portal, telehealth, telemedicine, text message, website Comparison Not applicable Not applicable Outcomes Uptake CTR, acceptability, acceptance, adoption, appropriateness, awareness, click-through rate, digital divide, download, engagement, equity, feasibility, fidelity, health literacy, impression, install, penetration, reach, retention, satisfaction, share, sustainability, usability, utilisation, view, click-through rate Context Cancer-related digital health resources Oncology care, cancer care continuum, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, palliative care, end-of-life care, supportive oncology Open in a new tab Eligibility criteria Eligibility criteria were defined to filter articles during the title and abstract screening stage. Materials within the last 20 years (i.e. January 2005 to August 2025) were chosen in order to track trends and changes in the digital resource landscape over a substantial period of time. Articles were limited to those in English, as it was not practical to hire a translator to interpret research in other languages. Only peer-reviewed academic articles from journals and conferences were included to ensure high-quality review results; excluding other sources, such as grey literature, ensures the studies discussed in this review have been subject to rigorous peer review. Other types of materials were not considered due to difficulties in proving validity from low-quality sources. Additionally, other literature reviews were excluded from our analysis as they are secondary sources of information. We required that all materials chosen for review were either open access or were subject to some university-provided access agreement, allowing us to view the full text without further payment. We excluded materials that required purchase for financial reasons. Finally, the articles under appraisal had to be relevant to at least one of our research questions to be considered for inclusion. Resources targeting healthcare professionals were not considered relevant. All possible digital resources were considered relevant. Additionally, studies had to include some form of dissemination strategy and measurement of resource uptake. Information sources Digital libraries were selected for searching based on their relevance to our research questions and their use in past literature [ 13 , 21 , 22 ]. We chose the CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo libraries [ 23 – 26 ]. Databases were all searched at the end of August. Exported studies were refined over the September period. Search Each library has its own search engine features, facilitating advanced search strings and keyword usage. The keywords for search queries used were derived from the PICOC term breakdown process outlined in Table 1 . Figure 1 shows the base search string used before database-specific modification, with a series of logical operators used to distinguish between each of the PICOC criteria. Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Base search string Selection of sources of evidence After title and abstract screening, the full text of each article was assessed to determine review relevance. In order to be considered relevant, studies had to be related to people affected by cancer; studies were considered irrelevant if they only targeted healthcare staff or policy makers, with no inclusion of caregivers, survivors, or patients. Oncology clinicians were included only if research was focused on encouraging them to share resources with patients, survivors, and carers, or if they were included with the aforementioned people as targets for the digital resource. Studies were included if they clearly described details of any dissemination strategy to raise digital health resource awareness; studies that did not report any usage numbers or uptake measures whatsoever were excluded. Articles describing the dissemination of non-digital interventions were also considered irrelevant, such as surveys, exercise programmes, or cancer screening programmes. The first author conducted preliminary full-text screening; material choices were reviewed by the second author and sent back to the first author for appraisal. Relevance was reconsidered following first-round full-text screening, leading to the need to further refine what type of digital resources were to be considered eligible for inclusion. Subsequently, materials were excluded if they were not general psychosocial interventions; psychosocial digital resources had to include some aspect of generalisability in their design to be considered eligible for review, making them applicable to broader cancer-related populations, not just those they were designed to be used for. Full-text screening was subsequently refined in a cyclical process, passing from first to second author repeatedly until both authors were satisfied with the papers included and all disputes regarding materials eligible for inclusion were resolved. Data charting process and data items Data charting was undertaken using Microsoft Excel. A pilot charting process was undertaken with five articles to ensure all key elements of the study were captured. A free-text process was followed during initial charting stages to capture all key themes. Subsequently, once all articles were charted, a more rigorous thematic and itemised categorisation was undertaken. These key data items and themes are reported on in the “ Results ” and “ Discussion ” sections, respectively. The number of people who used the digital resources within each study was collected, along with bibliometric data, such as research country and publication information. Information surrounding facilitators and barriers was collected and subsequently refined into distinct items and thematic categories. Synthesis of results Data was processed using the Python programming language to allow for the easy and flexible visualisation of results. Jupyter Notebooks were used to import data, count the number of reoccurrences of particular variables in the analysis, and display results in counter objects or graphs. Additionally, this code usage ensured that subsequent theme refinement was easily undertaken by rerunning analysis files. Various data points from the data charting stage outlined in “ Data charting process and data items ” were synthesised using this coding process. Results Selection of sources of evidence The search process, along with its associated results, is outlined in a PRISMA-ScR-style flowchart in Fig. 2 . Two articles were marked as ineligible when database results were imported into Zotero; one article was a retracted article, and another item was blank upon import, with no identifying information. After all screening stages were completed, 30 articles remained for review. A range of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies is included in this review. Due to the diverse range of study design types present in the literature, we did not conduct an assessment of the quality of included studies. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Article selection process Characteristics of sources of evidence Research country Most studies came from Western regions, with North America ( n = 18), Australia ( n = 7), and Europe ( n = 6) featuring most often in the literature. Kenya ( n = 1) and Saudi Arabia ( n = 1) are the only two countries present in the reviewed materials that fall outside the Western scope. Recruited population numbers The majority of studies that recorded target population numbers only managed to recruit small numbers of people. The mean number of people initially exposed to the digital interventions was approximately 308. The mean number of people retained throughout the duration of the intervention was approximately 157. The minimum number of people involved in any study was 24 initially, and 10 upon intervention completion. The maximum number of people involved initially and upon intervention completion was 2961 and 1070, respectively. Studies that recorded website hits and various other metrics ( n = 3) are not included in these numbers [ 27 – 29 ]. Results of individual sources of evidence Table 2 outlines all relevant outcomes data for each source of evidence. Table 2. Data extraction table Paper Year Country Target group Cancer type Type of resource Purpose Dissemination level Dissemination strategy [ 27 ] 2010 USA Patients Prostate; colorectal Educational Video(s) Self-management Local Direct message; word of mouth [ 28 ] 2017 USA Survivors Prostate Website Education Regional Direct message; traditional media [ 29 ] 2022 USA Patients Any Educational Video(s) Self-management Regional Digital media; traditional media [ 30 ] 2020 USA Survivors Any Website Mental health National Direct message; digital media; word of mouth [ 31 ] 2020 USA Patients; caregivers Breast App Mental health Local Traditional media; word of mouth [ 32 ] 2020 USA Patients Breast App Mental health Local Traditional media; word of mouth [ 33 ] 2020 USA Survivors Breast Website Self-management Local Direct message; traditional media [ 34 ] 2020 UK Survivors Any Online program Self-management National Digital media [ 35 ] 2020 UK Patients; survivors Breast N/A Self-management National Digital media; traditional media; word of mouth [ 36 ] 2020 Australia Patients Breast; colorectal App Communication Local Word of mouth [ 37 ] 2022 Kenya Patients Breast Website Education National Traditional media; digital media; word of mouth [ 38 ] 2024 USA Patients Prostate App Self-management Local Word of Mouth [ 39 ] 2024 USA Patients; caregivers Any App Self-management Regional Direct message [ 40 ] 2024 USA Patients Any Telehealth platform Mental health Local Direct message; word of mouth [ 41 ] 2022 Germany Caregivers Any Online program Mental health National Digital media; traditional media; word of mouth [ 42 ] 2024 Australia Survivors Breast Online program Mental health National Direct message; digital media; word of mouth [ 43 ] 2022 USA Survivors Any Online program Self-management National Direct message; digital media; traditional media [ 44 ] 2025 USA Survivors Ovarian Website Education Regional Direct message [ 45 ] 2018 Australia Survivors Any Online program Mental health National Direct message; digital media [ 46 ] 2025 Australia Patients; survivors Breast Online program Mental health National Digital media [ 47 ] 2023 USA Patients Breast Telehealth platform Self-management Local Direct message; word of mouth; traditional Media [ 48 ] 2021 Saudi Arabia Patients Any Portal Education; self-management Local Word of mouth [ 49 ] 2019 USA Patients; caregivers Breast Portal Communication Local Direct message; word of mouth [ 50 ] 2016 Germany Patients Colorectal; prostate; breast Website Education National Traditional media; word of mouth [ 51 ] 2014 Australia Patients Prostate Online platform Mental health National Traditional media; digital media; word of mouth [ 52 ] 2011 USA Patients Head; neck Telehealth platform Education Local Traditional media; word of mouth [ 53 ] 2025 Australia Patients; survivors Breast; prostate; colorectal Online program Mental health National Digital media; word of mouth [ 54 ] 2023 UK Patients Any App Self-management Regional Digital media [ 55 ] 2021 Australia; UK; Canada; USA Patients; survivors Any App Self-management International Digital media [ 56 ] 2010 Canada Patients Breast Portal Self-management; mental health Local Word of mouth Open in a new tab Synthesis of results Target population and cancer types The majority of the studies targeted cancer patients ( n = 21). Cancer survivors ( n = 12) and cancer caregivers ( n = 4) also featured as target populations in the literature. Of the studies that focused on patients, 13 studies targeted breast cancer-related populations [ 31 – 33 , 35 – 37 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 56 ]. Many studies included mixed cancer populations ( n = 11) [ 29 , 30 , 34 , 39 – 41 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 54 , 55 ]. Studies including prostate ( n = 6), colorectal ( n = 4), ovarian ( n = 1), head ( n = 1), and neck ( n = 1) cancers also feature in the literature [ 27 , 28 , 36 , 38 , 44 , 50 – 53 ]. Intervention details The majority of studies focused on online programmes ( n = 8), apps ( n = 7), or websites ( n = 6) [ 28 , 30 – 34 , 36 – 39 , 41 – 46 , 50 , 51 , 53 – 55 ]. Other interventions, such as portals ( n = 3) and telehealth platforms ( n = 3), were less frequently described in the literature [ 40 , 47 – 49 , 52 , 56 ]. Online programmes could further be decomposed into website or app resources; however, they are often multimodal and can encompass a range of both technological and in-person supports. The majority of interventions focusing on cancer patients alone made use of apps ( n = 4). Overall, the types of intervention focusing on cancer patients were the most diverse, with educational videos ( n = 2), online programmes ( n = 1), patient portals ( n = 2), telehealth platforms ( n = 3), and websites ( n = 2) also featured. Interventions focused solely on cancer survivors made use of online programmes ( n = 4) and websites ( n = 4). There was only one online programme exclusively targeting caregivers. Other mixed-group studies used apps ( n = 3), online programmes ( n = 2), and patient portals ( n = 1), if specified. The main purpose of the majority of interventions was to provide some form of self-management tool ( n = 13); self-management in this context extends to both symptom reporting and personal decision-making [ 27 , 29 , 33 – 35 , 38 , 39 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 54 – 56 ]. Mental health aids ( n = 11), educational resources ( n = 6), and communication tools ( n = 2) also featured in the reviewed papers [ 28 , 30 – 32 , 36 , 37 , 40 – 42 , 44 – 46 , 48 – 53 , 56 ]. Co-design and dissemination Only five studies explicitly described or outlined their use of co-design in the creation, implementation, or dissemination of their digital resource [ 28 , 29 , 33 , 37 , 53 ]. As outlined in Fig. 3 , the majority of studies included some form of word-of-mouth dissemination strategy ( n = 19) [ 27 , 30 – 32 , 35 – 38 , 40 – 42 , 47 – 53 , 56 ]. Word-of-mouth strategies usually feature face-to-face clinician contact or endorsement from a cancer organisation representative. One out of the 13 studies did not report the involvement of some form of cancer organisation or clinic in their dissemination strategy [ 55 ]. Digital media ( n = 14), such as social media and recruitment or organisational websites, were also used frequently in the literature [ 29 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 41 – 43 , 45 , 46 , 51 , 53 – 55 ]. Direct message ( n = 12), such as text, email, mail, or phone call, and traditional media ( n = 13) usage, such as flyers, posters, pamphlets, newspapers, or brochures, were also used [ 27 – 33 , 35 , 37 , 39 – 45 , 47 , 49 – 52 ]. Two studies provided examples of their materials in their publication; the majority of studies ( n = 28) did not show examples of their dissemination materials [ 29 , 55 ]. Fig. 3. Open in a new tab Dissemination channels As outlined in Fig. 4 , the majority of studies involved either a national ( n = 12) or local ( n = 12) dissemination strategy [ 27 , 30 – 38 , 40 – 43 , 45 – 53 , 56 ]. This figure shows the range of dissemination levels considered in the recruitment of people; the distinction made between regional and local strategies refers to whether a study involved either multiple sites or locations within the same county or province or simply involved a single site or locality. Eighteen studies highlighted the need for more diverse or larger target populations [ 28 – 30 , 34 – 36 , 38 – 40 , 42 – 44 , 46 , 48 , 51 , 53 – 55 ]. Additionally, 25 studies reported that sample diversity or size was a limitation of their work [ 29 – 32 , 34 – 39 , 41 – 44 , 46 – 56 ]. Fig. 4. Open in a new tab Level of dissemination Facilitators Clinician, organisation, or researcher promotion and troubleshooting ( n = 12) frequently facilitated digital intervention usage [ 28 , 31 , 32 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 47 , 52 – 54 , 56 ]. People were inclined to use digital resources when recommended by trusted medical or cancer-related figures in their lives. Additionally, the duration, relevance, and structure of interventions seemed to be cited as frequent reasons for participation ( n = 9) [ 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 35 , 38 , 44 , 46 , 51 ]. Interventions were used by people who felt that there was direct relevance, such as websites for an exact form of cancer or treatment, as opposed to interventions about cancer in general [ 30 , 44 ]. Apps ( n = 2), educational videos ( n = 2), and online programmes ( n = 2), which are flexible, both in structural and temporal terms, were appealing to people. Apps ( n = 2) allowed relevant persons to access interventions at times that suited them and in portable formats [ 38 , 57 ]. Educational videos ( n = 2) were in an easily digestible format [ 27 , 29 ]. One video-related study did not provide information on the duration of the content [ 27 ]. The other study used 20 videos of approximately 1 min in length [ 29 ]. Online programmes ( n = 2) made mental health supports available to people from their own homes, again allowing for temporal and structural flexibility [ 46 , 51 ]. In four studies, people indicated that social opportunities attracted them to digital resources [ 34 , 35 , 45 , 46 ]. Reminder emails, texts, notifications, or calls also encouraged people in six studies to use a digital resource [ 30 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 52 , 53 ]. Three studies mentioned curiosity as a reason for using the digital resource [ 40 , 48 , 51 ]. Four studies did not include any significant discussion of facilitators [ 42 , 49 , 50 , 55 ]. Barriers The most frequently discussed barriers to digital intervention usage included target population issues ( n = 22) and technological issues ( n = 20); only two studies did not mention either of these barriers [ 34 , 45 ]. Target population issues included language barriers, lack of awareness about the intervention type, purpose, or benefit, confusion surrounding the intervention, emotional or information overload, lack of trust in the intervention, illness-related issues, and stigma surrounding cancer or the type of intervention [ 27 – 33 , 36 , 38 – 42 , 46 – 54 ]. Technological issues included confidence in the intervention, skill level, and accessibility [ 29 , 30 , 32 , 35 – 38 , 40 – 44 , 46 – 48 , 50 , 52 , 54 – 56 ]. Digital literacy was highlighted in three studies as a significant barrier to the use of resources by appropriately diverse populations [ 32 , 34 , 39 ]. Time issues ( n = 11), such as the lack of free time or the lengthy nature of a resource, also frequently appeared as barriers in the literature [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 53 ]. To a lesser extent, clinical issues ( n = 5), such as disruption to the patient-provider workflow or relationship, were also mentioned [ 32 , 34 , 41 , 45 , 47 ]. Discussion Principal findings Overview To our knowledge, this review is the first to synthesise psychosocial cancer digital resource dissemination strategies. This review includes 30 articles relevant to the dissemination of digital interventions. From this literature, key insights can be derived surrounding cultural, geographical, and digital divides, trust and credibility, and the target population focus. Cultural, geographical, and digital divides Overall, the papers featured in this review focus predominantly on Western countries; the lack of geographical and cultural diversity reflects the rather narrow range of perspectives found within the literature. This focus leads to academic insights that may not be applicable outside of the Global North. The need for diverse population samples is mentioned in many studies in order to create more robust findings; even within Western settings, there is a tendency to target specific ethnic or gender-based groups, leading to results reporting on homogenous populations. Western ideological belief in individual control leads to certain forms of dissemination strategy becoming more successful in the locations for which they are designed; however, these dissemination strategies do not take different cultural perspectives about cancer into account, leading to the ethnocentric creation of dissemination materials for predominantly white, Western audiences [ 58 ]. Many low-to-middle-income countries lack the resources found in higher-income countries, yet have over-represented patient populations with advanced cancer; tailored approaches to care are necessary in these countries that take cultural and religious differences into account [ 59 ]. Furthermore, there exists a digital divide between those who are technology-savvy and those who are not, leading to growing societal access challenges [ 60 ]. Many studies in this review highlight that their findings are limited to a digitally literate population or that future work should focus on targeting a diverse range of digital literacy levels. As outlined in the literature, those who are not technologically confident may not be interested in accessing digital resources due to their own perceived inadequacies in relation to technology [ 38 , 44 ]. However, this circumstance only leads to a wider gap between those who benefit from technology and those who do not; the digital divide in itself becomes a manifestation of socio-demographic and socio-economic disparities that exist within populations around the globe [ 60 ]. Future research should help to target those less technologically literate, along with people from under-represented areas, in order to improve the technological diversity of relevant populations. Additionally, both traditional and digital media should be designed to encourage those who are not technologically confident to become involved in the development of digital resources. Trust and credibility Co-design, within the context of our review, is the process of engaging patients, healthcare professionals, and other stakeholders to develop digital resources [ 61 ]. Very few studies within our chosen literature report the use of co-design in their research; however, many studies used some form of clinician or organisation-based recruitment strategy to disseminate their digital resource. From our review, it seems that when clinicians or organisations are involved in the dissemination of resources to target populations, trust in and thereby usage of the intervention grows. This encouraging finding highlights that involving these key figures, not only in the dissemination but also in the development of resources, may further enhance resource uptake. Potential target groups may be more inclined to interact with proposed interventions when they know that trusted figures in their lives, such as healthcare professionals, cancer survivors, or organisational representatives, were involved in the design process. There is a juxtaposition between the lack of co-design usage in the literature and the use of stakeholders in the dissemination of resources; researchers do not make it clear whether collaborative partners should feel a sense of ownership over the resources they are disseminating. If key stakeholders are involved in the design of such resources, there may be increased trust in this research, leading to dissemination strategy success. Future research should include key stakeholders in not only dissemination processes but in design processes too, potentially increasing digital resource uptake. Patient versus caregiver focus Very few of the studies selected for this review focused on cancer caregivers. Cancer caregivers are becoming increasingly important as more and more cancer care moves to outpatient delivery settings with home monitoring [ 62 ]. The majority of digital resources are not created with these key people in mind; carers’ understanding of health information is crucial to appropriately support patients and survivors in cancer-related settings [ 63 ]. From a dissemination perspective, there are unique challenges associated with providing information to caregivers. Busy caregivers are quite often short on time; they are greatly affected by the so-called time toxicity of cancer [ 57 ]. Additionally, caregivers can have unmet needs surrounding mental health and well-being, which can be exacerbated by caring for loved ones with cancer [ 64 ]. Due to the lack of information found in the literature related to the dissemination of caregiver digital resources, more robust research is needed to provide deeper insights into this important group. Future research should focus on the creation and dissemination of resources to support cancer caregivers. Limitations In this review, we chose four databases; by limiting ourselves to these databases, we could potentially exclude publications from other reputable sources. Additionally, while both authors were involved in the article selection process, the first author conducted preliminary title and abstract screening alone; this increases the likelihood of selection bias. While the use of the PRISMA-ScR protocol limits some potential for bias, it does not eliminate it entirely. Future reviews on this subject could include more researchers in the article selection process. Our eligibility criteria limited our findings to English-language articles. While we report in this study a lack of materials from certain geographical locations, we cannot say that these materials do not exist; they may simply be in other languages. Additionally, we excluded inaccessible materials due to financial constraints; as a result, we may have excluded important studies in the digital resource field. Furthermore, only conference and journal articles were considered, ensuring high-quality papers were analysed. However, we potentially limited the breadth of review results to a narrow range of material types. Prospective reviews with similar research questions should include less stringent eligibility criteria to gain a deeper understanding of the cancer-related digital resource field. Conclusion This PRISMA-ScR scoping review was undertaken to investigate the current stage of research on dissemination strategies for digital resources aimed at people affected by cancer. Our findings are based on 30 research articles. Bibliometric analysis revealed that the reviewed literature was predominantly focused on Western nations, revealing cultural homogeneity in our findings. Additionally, we found that access to technology is deeply connected to geographical and cultural disparities in the literature. We also found that dissemination was hindered by issues surrounding trust, credibility, and the participation of key stakeholders in resource design and dissemination. Finally, research undertaken into the dissemination of digital resources for caregivers, along with standardised recruitment measures, is desperately needed in this field. The main contribution of this study is a review of psychosocial digital resource dissemination strategies targeting people affected by cancer. By addressing the issues highlighted in this review, it will be possible to create a more equitable, effective, and informed cancer care landscape for future populations. Author contribution Both authors contributed to the design of the research questions and methodology. I.R. performed the literature search and data analysis. O.S. provided guidance and contributed to the literature selection process when required. The first draft of the manuscript was written by I.R., and both authors revised the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Taighde Éireann – Research Ireland under Grant number 18/CRT/6222. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Data availability All data, materials, and code relevant to this submission can be found at 10.5281/zenodo.19456035. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This is a literature review. No ethical approval is required. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Soerjomataram I, Bray F (2021) Planning for tomorrow: global cancer incidence and the role of prevention 2020–2070. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 18(10):663–672. 10.1038/s41571-021-00514-z [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Siegel RL, Kratzer TB, Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Jemal A (2025) Cancer statistics, 2025. CA Cancer J Clin 75(1):10–45. 10.3322/caac.21871 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Kim JJ, Salomon JA, Weinstein MC, Goldie SJ (2006) Packaging health services when resources are limited: the example of a cervical cancer screening visit. PLoS Med 3(11):434. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030434 [ Google Scholar ] 4. Aapro M, Bossi P, Dasari A, Fallowfield L, Gascón P, Geller M, Jordan K, Kim J, Martin K, Porzig S (2020) Digital health for optimal supportive care in oncology: benefits, limits, and future perspectives. Support Care Cancer 28(10):4589–4612. 10.1007/s00520-020-05539-1 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Melhem SJ, Nabhani-Gebara S, Kayyali R (2024) Leveraging e-health for enhanced cancer care service models in middle-income contexts: qualitative insights from oncology care providers. Digit Health. 10.1177/20552076241237668 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Teo I, Krishnan A, Lee GL (2019) Psychosocial interventions for advanced cancer patients: a systematic review. Psychooncology 28(7):1394–1407. 10.1002/pon.5103 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Brownson, R.C.: Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. Oxford University Press. Google-Books-ID: ycM9DwAAQBAJ 8. Kemp E, Trigg J, Beatty L, Christensen C, Dhillon HM, Maeder A, Williams PAH, Koczwara B (2021) Health literacy, digital health literacy and the implementation of digital health technologies in cancer care: the need for a strategic approach. Health Promot J Austr 32:104–114. 10.1002/hpja.387 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Pong C, Tseng RMWW, Tham YC, Lum E (2024) Current implementation of digital health in chronic disease management: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 26(1):53576. 10.2196/53576 [ Google Scholar ] 10. Ross J, Stevenson F, Dack C, Pal K, May C, Michie S, Barnard M, Murray E (2018) Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res 18(1):794. 10.1186/s12913-018-3615-7 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Pearce L, Costa N, Sherrington C, Hassett L (2023) Implementation of digital health interventions in rehabilitation: a scoping review. Clin Rehabil. 10.1177/02692155231172299 12. Boonstra A, Versluis A, Vos JFJ (2014) Implementing electronic health records in hospitals: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):370. 10.1186/1472-6963-14-370 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Moungui HC, Nana-Djeunga HC, Anyiang CF, Cano M, Postigo JAR, Carrion C (2024) Dissemination strategies for mHealth apps: systematic review. JMIR mHealth Uhealth 12(1):50293. 10.2196/50293 [ Google Scholar ] 14. Varsi C, Nes LS, Kristjansdottir OB, Kelders SM, Stenberg U, Zangi HA, Børøsund E, Weiss KE, Stubhaug A, Asbjørnsen RA, Westeng M, Ødegaard M, Eide H (2019) Implementation strategies to enhance the implementation of eHealth programs for patients with chronic illnesses: realist systematic review. J Med Internet Res 21(9):14255. 10.2196/14255 [ Google Scholar ] 15. Ramasawmy M, Poole L, Thorlu-Bangura Z, Chauhan A, Murali M, Jagpal P, Bijral M, Prashar J, G-Medhin A, Murray E, Stevenson F, Blandford A, Potts HWW, Khunti K, Hanif W, Gill P, Sajid M, Patel K, Sood H, Bhala N, Modha S, Mistry M, Patel V, Ali SN, Ala A, Banerjee A (2022) Frameworks for implementation, uptake, and use of cardiometabolic disease–related digital health interventions in ethnic minority populations: scoping review. JMIR Cardio 6(2):37360. 10.2196/37360 [ Google Scholar ] 16. Chapman E, Haby MM, Toma TS, Bortoli MC, Illanes E, Oliveros MJ, Barreto JOM (2020) Knowledge translation strategies for dissemination with a focus on healthcare recipients: an overview of systematic reviews. Implement Sci 15(1):14. 10.1186/s13012-020-0974-3 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Parajuli R, Bohara D, Kc M, Shanmuganathan S, Mistry SK, Yadav UN (2022) Challenges and opportunities for implementing digital health interventions in Nepal: a rapid review. Front Digit Health. 10.3389/fdgth.2022.861019 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Campos L, Moniz A, Donato H, Nunes B, Cruz EB (2025) Implementation of digital health in rural populations with chronic musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synth 23(9):1788. 10.11124/JBIES-24-00396 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Zotero | Your personal research assistant. https://www.zotero.org/ Accessed 2025–09–29 20. Free online spreadsheet software: Excel | Microsoft 365. https://www.microsoft.com/en-ie/microsoft-365/excel . Accessed 2025–09–29 21. Borg K, Boulet M, Smith L, Bragge P (n.d.) Digital inclusion & health communication: a rapid review of literature. Publisher: Routledge 22. Roberts-Lewis S, Baxter H, Mein G, Quirke-McFarlane S, Leggat FJ, Garner H, Powell M, White S, Bearne L (2024) Examining the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence for health and social care practitioners: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 1:51418. 10.2196/51418 [ Google Scholar ] 23. CINAHL Database | EBSCO. https://about.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/cinahl-database . Accessed 29 Sept 2025 24. Quick Search - Embase. https://www.embase.com/search/quick . Accessed 29 Sept 2025 25. MEDLINE. Publisher: U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medlinehome.html . Accessed 29 Sept 2025 26. APA PsycInfo. https://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo . Accessed 29 Sept 2025 27. Brackett C, Kearing S, Cochran N, Tosteson ANA, Blair Brooks W (2010) Strategies for distributing cancer screening decision aids in primary care. Patient Educ Couns. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.013 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Skolarus TA, Ragnoni JA, Garlinghouse C, Schafenacker A, Webster D, Hager P, Wittmann D, Northouse L (2017) Multilingual self-management resources for prostate cancer survivors and their partners: results of a long-term academic-state health department partnership to promote survivorship care. Urology 110:92–97. 10.1016/j.urology.2017.06.017 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Blee SM, Facdol J, Dixon MD, Master V, Switchenko JM, Pentz RD (2022) Dissemination of validated health literacy videos: a tailored approach. Cancer Med. 10.1002/cam4.4572 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Yi JC, Sullivan B, Leisenring WM, Majhail NS, Jim H, Loren A, Uberti J, Whalen V, Flowers MED, Lee SJ, Maynard K, Syrjala KL (2020) Who enrolls in an online cancer survivorship program? Reach of the INSPIRE randomized controlled trial for hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 26(10):1948–1954 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Chow PI, Showalter SL, Gerber M, Kennedy EM, Brenin D, Mohr DC, Lattie EG, Gupta A, Ocker G, Cohn WF (2020) Use of mental health apps by patients with breast cancer in the United States: pilot pre-post study. JMIR Cancer. 10.2196/16476 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Gupta A, Ocker G, Chow PI (2020) Recruiting breast cancer patients for mHealth research: obstacles to clinic-based recruitment for a mobile phone app intervention study. Clin Trials 17(6):675–683. 10.1177/1740774520939247 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Kapoor A, Nambisan P (2020) Personal decision support for survivor engagement: formulation and feasibility evaluation of a conceptual framework for implementing online cancer survivorship care plans. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 20(1):1–12. 10.1186/s12911-020-1073-8 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Martin F, Wright H, Moody L, Whiteman B, McGillion M, Clyne W, Pearce G, Turner A (2020) Help to overcome problems effectively for cancer survivors: development and evaluation of a digital self-management program. J Med Internet Res. 10.2196/17824 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Ure C, Cooper-Ryan AM, Condie J, Galpin A (2020) Exploring strategies for using social media to self-manage health care when living with and beyond breast cancer: in-depth qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 10.2196/16902 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Whitehead L, Emery L, Kirk D, Twigg D, Brown D, Dewar J (2020) Evaluation of a remote symptom assessment and management (SAM) system for people receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast or colorectal cancer: mixed methods study. JMIR Cancer 6(2):22825. 10.2196/22825 [ Google Scholar ] 37. Shaikh AJ, Dhillion N, Shah J, Kathomi C, Kiragu A, Asirwa FC, Nyongesa C, Kasmani R, Abayo I, Kirathe G, Sayed S (2022) Supporting Kenyan women with advanced breast cancer through a network and assessing their needs and quality of life. Support Care Cancer 30(2):1557–1567. 10.1007/s00520-021-06539-5 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Kwon DH, Trihy L, Darvish N, Hearst E, Sumra S, Borno HT, Bose R, Chou J, Kouchkovsky I, Desai A, Ekstrand B, Friedlander T, Kaur G, Koshkin VS, Nesheiwat S, Sepucha K, Small EJ, Aggarwal RR, Belkora J (2024) Patients can administer mobile audio recordings to increase knowledge in advanced prostate cancer. Cancer Med 13(22):70433. 10.1002/cam4.70433 [ Google Scholar ] 39. Yunis R, Fonda SJ, Aghaee S, Kubo A, Davis SW, Liu R, Neeman E, Oakley-Girvan I (2024) Mobile app activity engagement by cancer patients and their caregivers informs remote monitoring. Sci Rep 14(1):3375 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Mishra KK, Leung IC, Chao MT, Thompson-Lastad A, Pollak C, Dhruva A, Hartogensis W, Lister M, Cheng SW, Atreya CE (2024) Mindfulness-based group medical visits: strategies to improve equitable access and inclusion for diverse patients in cancer treatment. Glob Adv Integr Med Health. 10.1177/27536130241263486 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Grapp M, Ell J, Kiermeier S, Haun MW, Kübler A, Friederich H-C, Maatouk I (2022) Feasibility study of a self-guided internet-based intervention for family caregivers of patients with cancer (OAse). Sci Rep 12(1):16713 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Smith AB, Bamgboje-Ayodele A, Jegathees S, Butow P, Klein B, Salter M, Turner J, Fardell J, Thewes B, Sharpe L, Beatty L, Pearce A, Beith J, Costa D, Rincones O, Wu VS, Garden FL, Kiely BE, Lim K, Morstyn L, Hanley B, Hodgkin R, Beattie A, Girgis A (2024) Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of iConquerFear: a self-guided digital intervention for fear of cancer recurrence. J Cancer Surviv 18(2):425–438 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Leach CR, Hudson SV, Diefenbach MA, Wiseman KP, Sanders A, Coa K, Chantaprasopsuk S, Stephens RL, Alfano CM (2022) Cancer health self-efficacy improvement in a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 128(3):597–605. 10.1002/cncr.33947 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Shepperd JA, McBride CM, An W, Zhao J, Pentz RD, Escoffery C, Ward K, Guan Y (2025) Trust and privacy concerns among cancer survivors who did not visit a research website offering free genetic counseling services for families: survey study. J Med Internet Res. 10.2196/64228 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Mihuta ME, Green HJ (2018) The implementation of web-based cognitive rehabilitation in adult cancer survivors: examining participant engagement, attrition and treatment fidelity. Support Care Cancer 26(2):499–506. 10.1007/s00520-017-3855-9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Tuckey N, Agteren JV, Chur-Hansen A, Ali K, Fassnacht DB, Beatty L, Bareham M, Wardill H, Iasiello M (2025) Implementing a group-based online mental well-being program for women living with and beyond breast cancer – a mixed methods study. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 21(2):180–189. 10.1111/ajco.14060 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Tsangaris E, Hyland C, Liang G, O’Gorman J, Huerta DT, Kim E, Edelen M, Pusic A (2023) Feasibility of implementing patient-reported outcome measures into routine breast cancer care delivery using a novel collection and reporting platform. JAMIA Open. 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad108 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Alshoumr B, Yu P, Hailey D, Bindayel F, Alanazi S, Alshammary S (2021) Understanding cancer patients’ use and perceptions of inpatient portal: a case study at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Int J Med Inform 148:104398. 10.1016/jijmedinf.2021.104398 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Wolff JL, Aufill J, Echavarria D, Heughan JA-A, Lee KT, Connolly RM, Fetting JH, Jelovac D, Papathakis K, Riley C, Stearns V, Thorner E, Zafman N, Levy HP, Dy SM, Wolff AC (2019) Sharing in care: engaging care partners in the care and communication of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 177(1):127–136. 10.1007/s10549-019-05306-9 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Engler J, Adami S, Adam Y, Keller B, Repke T, Fügemann H, Lucius-Hoene G, Müller-Nordhorn J, Holmberg C (2016) Using others’ experiences. Cancer patients’ expectations and navigation of a website providing narratives on prostate, breast and colorectal cancer. Patient Educ Couns 99(8):1325–1332. 10.1016/j.pec.2016.03.015 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Wootten AC, Abbott JAM, Chisholm K, Austin DW, Klein B, McCabe M, Murphy DG, Costello AJ (2014) Development, feasibility and usability of an online psychological intervention for men with prostate cancer: my road ahead. Internet Interv 1(4):188–195. 10.1016/j.invent.2014.10.001 [ Google Scholar ] 52. Head BA, Keeney C, Studts JL, Khayat M, Bumpous J, Pfeifer M (2011) Feasibility and acceptance of a telehealth intervention to promote symptom management during treatment for head and neck cancer. J Support Oncol 9(1):1–11. 10.1016/j.suponc.2010.12.006 [ Google Scholar ] 53. Livingston PM, Winter N, Russell L, O E, Smith AB, Romaniuk H, Jefford M, Ugalde A, Girgis A, Austin DW, Mihalopoulos C, Chambers R, Phipps-Nelson J, Herath D, Rasmussen B, Whitfield K, Ftanou M, Pilatti K, Sara S, Wootten A, Botti M, Gillan K, Singh M, Campbell D, Pillay B, Dundee P, O’Callaghan M, Evans SM, Orellana L, White VM (2025) Efficacy of an online mindfulness program ( MindOnLine ) to reduce fear of recurrence in people living with-and beyond-breast, prostate or colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. eClinicalMedicine 86:103373 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 54. McMullan C, Hughes SE, Aiyegbusi OL, Calvert M (2023) Usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome system linked to an electronic chemotherapy prescribing and patient management system for patients with cancer. Heliyon 9(6):16453 [ Google Scholar ] 55. Spahrkäs SS, Looijmans A, Sanderman R, Hagedoorn M (2021) Recruiting participants for an international mHealth study via Facebook ads: experiences from the Untire app RCT. Internet Interv 23:100362 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 56. Wiljer D, Leonard KJ, Urowitz S, Apatu E, Massey C, Quartey NK, Catton P (2010) The anxious wait: assessing the impact of patient accessible EHRs for breast cancer patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 10:46 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 57. Gupta A, Johnson WV, Henderson NL, Ogunleye OO, Sekar P, George M, Breininger A, Kyle MA, Booth CM, Hanna TP, Rocque GB, Parsons HM, Vogel RI, Blaes AH (2024) Patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives on the time burdens of cancer care. JAMA Netw Open 7(11):2447649. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.47649 [ Google Scholar ] 58. Navon, L.: Cultural views of cancer around the world 22(1), 39. Accessed 25 Sept 2025 59. Brant JM, Silbermann M (n.d.) Global perspectives on palliative care for cancer patients: not all countries are the same 23(5), 60 https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11912–021–01044–8. 25 Sept 2025 60. Lythreatis S, Singh SK, El-Kassar A-N (2022) The digital divide: a review and future research agenda. Technol Forecast Soc Change 175:121359. 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121359 [ Google Scholar ] 61. Green T, Bonner A, Teleni L, Bradford N, Purtell L, Douglas C, Yates P, MacAndrew M, Dao HY, Chan RJ (2020) Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 29(1):64–76. 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 62. Tan KR, Fenton AT, Kamen C (2025) A way forward for comprehensive cancer caregiver support. Am J Hosp Palliat Med 42(9):853–856. 10.1177/10499091241283405 [ Google Scholar ] 63. Yuen E, Wittenberg E, Wilson C, Adams J, Hutchinson A (2026) Cancer caregiver information needs: communication experiences with health providers – a qualitative study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 10.1136/spcare-2025-005553 64. Siminoff LA, Wilson-Genderson M, Chwistek M, Thomson MD (2025) Cancer caregiver anxiety over time: the influence of palliative care. J Palliat Care 40(1):51–57. 10.1177/08258597241284287 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement All data, materials, and code relevant to this submission can be found at 10.5281/zenodo.19456035. Articles from Supportive Care in Cancer are provided here courtesy of Springer ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.3 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