Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews.

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote cancer care delivery via the internet and telephone, rapidly accelerating an already growing care delivery model and associated research. This scoping review of reviews characterised the peer-reviewed literature reviews on digital health and telehealth interventions in cancer published from database inception up to May 1, 2022, from PubMed, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science. Eligible reviews conducted a systematic literature search. Data were extracted in duplicate via a pre-defined online survey. Following screening, 134 reviews met the eligibility criteria. 77 of those reviews were published since 2020. 128 reviews summarised interventions intended for patients, 18 addressed family caregivers, and five addressed health-care providers. 56 reviews did not target a specific phase of the cancer continuum, whereas 48 reviews tended to address the active treatment phase. 29 reviews included a meta-analysis, with results showing positive effects on quality of life, psychological outcomes, and screening behaviours. 83 reviews did not report intervention implementation outcomes but when reported, 36 reported acceptability, 32 feasibility, and 29 fidelity outcomes. Several notable gaps were identified in these literature reviews on digital health and telehealth in cancer care. No reviews specifically addressed older adults, bereavement, or sustainability of interventions and only two reviews focused on comparing telehealth to in-person interventions. Addressing these gaps with rigorous systematic reviews might help guide continued innovation in remote cancer care, particularly for older adults and bereaved families, and integrate and sustain these interventions within oncology.

Evaluation and workup of immunodeficiencies in recurrent acute rhinosinusitis: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDDs) may be a risk factor for development of recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS). There are currently no clear guidelines for the timing and methodology of PIDD testing in patients with RARS. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and analyze existing literature on this topic. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Articles addressing recurrent acute sinusitis and immunodeficiencies were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and systematically evaluated for eligibility by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 209 unique articles identified, 11 met criteria for review and analysis. Articles consisted of historical cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, in addition to case series and nonsystematic reviews. The majority (10) recommended immunodeficiency testing, consisting of general immunologic screening (3), quantitative immunoglobulins (6), and postvaccination antibody titers (5). There was an emphasis on immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass testing (6). Of the eight articles providing timing recommendations, the majority recommended testing after recurrent infections or diagnosis (6); however, criteria for diagnosis of RARS and populations targeted by recommendations varied greatly by article. CONCLUSION: Current literature on RARS emphasizes immunoglobulin quantification and postvaccination antibody titers to evaluate for PIDD after diagnosis, but recommendations are limited by wide-ranging populations of interest and inconsistent definitions. This scoping review identified a lack of evidence-based articles specific to diagnostic workup for PIDD in patients with RARS, and additional research with standardized definitions and focus on RARS is necessary to guide clinical practice.

Health literacy in pediatric otolaryngology: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To review research on status and outcomes of health literacy in pediatric otolaryngology and identify opportunities for quality improvement. METHODS: We performed a scoping review, adhering to methodologic standards. A combination of MeSH terms and keywords related to health literacy in otolaryngology was used to conduct a search. Relevant studies were identified using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Google Scholar databases. Studies were selected for inclusion by two authors if they addressed the domains of pediatric otolaryngology as well as health literacy. Data were abstracted from each study on the number of participants, the setting, the study design, the outcome measure, the intervention used, and the overall theme. Authors identified prominent overarching themes and grouped studies accordingly. Results were then tabulated for further review and to discern implications for future practice and research. RESULTS: Of 1046 articles identified, 20 articles were included. Studies fell into three major themes: readability of patient materials, patient recall after informed consent, and optimal patient education. Prominent findings included the following: 1. Much of the printed and electronic educational material in otolaryngology is above the recommended reading level for public health information; 2. Parents do not easily recall information provided verbally or in written form; and 3. Adding visual and multimodal components improves the success of parental education. CONCLUSION: Health literacy in pediatric otolaryngology may influence comprehension of educational materials and adequacy of informed consent. Future research may address whether patient health literacy affects clinical outcomes.