Display options
Cite
Uy C, Lopez J, Trinh-Shevrin C, et al. Text Messaging Interventions on Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(8):e296doi: 10.2196/jmir.7893.
Uy, C., Lopez, J., Trinh-Shevrin, C., Kwon, S. C., Sherman, S. E., & Liang, P. S. (2017). Text Messaging Interventions on Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review. Journal of medical Internet research, 19(8), e296. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7893
Uy, Catherine, et al. "Text Messaging Interventions on Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review." Journal of medical Internet research vol. 19,8 (2017): e296. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7893
Uy C, Lopez J, Trinh-Shevrin C, Kwon SC, Sherman SE, Liang PS. Text Messaging Interventions on Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Aug 24;19(8):e296. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7893. PMID: 28838885; PMCID: PMC5590008.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Med Internet Res. 2017 Aug 24;19(8):e296. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7893.

Text Messaging Interventions on Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review.

Journal of medical Internet research

Catherine Uy, Jennifer Lopez, Chau Trinh-Shevrin, Simona C Kwon, Scott E Sherman, Peter S Liang

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
  2. Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
  3. Department of Medicine, VA New York Harbor Manhattan Medical Center, New York, NY, United States.

PMID: 28838885 PMCID: PMC5590008 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7893

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite high-quality evidence demonstrating that screening reduces mortality from breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers, a substantial portion of the population remains inadequately screened. There is a critical need to identify interventions that increase the uptake and adoption of evidence-based screening guidelines for preventable cancers at the community practice level. Text messaging (short message service, SMS) has been effective in promoting behavioral change in various clinical settings, but the overall impact and reach of text messaging interventions on cancer screening are unknown.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effect of text messaging interventions on screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers.

METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies published between the years 2000 and 2017, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, to identify controlled trials that measured the effect of text messaging on screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, or lung cancers. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS: Our search yielded 2238 citations, of which 31 underwent full review and 9 met inclusion criteria. Five studies examined screening for breast cancer, one for cervical cancer, and three for colorectal cancer. No studies were found for lung cancer screening. Absolute screening rates for individuals who received text message interventions were 0.6% to 15.0% higher than for controls. Unadjusted relative screening rates for text message recipients were 4% to 63% higher compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging interventions appear to moderately increase screening rates for breast and cervical cancer and may have a small effect on colorectal cancer screening. Benefit was observed in various countries, including resource-poor and non-English-speaking populations. Given the paucity of data, additional research is needed to better quantify the effectiveness of this promising intervention.

©Catherine Uy, Jennifer Lopez, Chau Trinh-Shevrin, Simona C Kwon, Scott E Sherman, Peter S Liang. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 24.08.2017.

Keywords: breast neoplasms; colorectal neoplasms; early detection of cancer; lung neoplasms; mHealth; text messaging; uterine cervical neoplasms

References

  1. Am Surg. 2013 Oct;79(10 ):997-1000 - PubMed
  2. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(10):5901-4 - PubMed
  3. Cancer. 2017 Apr 15;123(8):1382-1389 - PubMed
  4. J Community Health. 2013 Feb;38(1):54-61 - PubMed
  5. Endoscopy. 2015 Nov;47(11):1018-27 - PubMed
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Apr 19;18(4):e86 - PubMed
  7. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2016 Jan;43(1):36-43 - PubMed
  8. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Jun;34(6):999-1005 - PubMed
  9. JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315 (23 ):2564-2575 - PubMed
  10. Rev Calid Asist. 2014 Jul-Aug;29(4):188-96 - PubMed
  11. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(38):1-205, iii-v - PubMed
  12. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 21;4(2):e75 - PubMed
  13. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Sep 17;159(6):411-420 - PubMed
  14. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):279-96 - PubMed
  15. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 18;9(8):e104895 - PubMed
  16. Telemed J E Health. 2014 Feb;20(2):182-5 - PubMed
  17. Health Serv Res. 2012 Apr;47(2):614-32 - PubMed
  18. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108 - PubMed
  19. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jan;25(1):16-27 - PubMed
  20. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jul;12(7):663-72 - PubMed
  21. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 May 19;96(10):770-80 - PubMed
  22. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 05;(12):CD007458 - PubMed
  23. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 10;4:CD006611 - PubMed
  24. Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 17;112(6):1005-10 - PubMed
  25. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Mar-Apr;61(2):69-90 - PubMed
  26. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30 - PubMed
  27. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Aug;174(8):1235-41 - PubMed
  28. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 4;149(9):627-37 - PubMed
  29. Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Oct;14 (5):789-97 - PubMed
  30. Am J Public Health. 2016 Nov;106(11):1998-2004 - PubMed
  31. J Med Syst. 2014 Sep;38(9):118 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support