e-Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2020

Background: While there are commonly accepted criteria of what defines quality cancer care, less is known about how quality metrics apply to mHealth interventions.

Aim: To identify how quality of mHealth interventions described.

Methods: CINAHL, EMCare, JBI, Medline, SCOPUS and ProQuest databases from January 2008 to January 2020 were searched. Reviews with search terms related to “mobile devices”, “quality” and “cancer” relevant to adults with cancer were included. Interventions had to be delivered by mobile device, including a smartphone via app or SMS, or wearable devices like activity trackers. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction was carried out independently with a second reviewer. Conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. Reviews were being evaluated for coverage of quality according to six quality items, ‘patient-centred’, ‘equitable’, ‘safety’, ‘effectiveness’, ‘timely’, and ‘efficient’. The AMSTAR tool was used to rate the quality of the reviews included.

Results: The initial search yielded 766 papers with nine papers meeting the eligibility criteria. Five papers were of moderate quality and four of low quality. Five papers were systematic reviews, three literature reviews and one scoping review. The median number of quality metrics covered in a review was two. The most common quality metrics covered was patient-centred (n=7), equitable (n=5), safety (n=4), effectiveness (n=4), timely (n=3), and efficient (n=3) (see table)

Conclusion: There is great variability in how quality of mHealth interventions is defined with no reviews addressing all quality metrics. A comprehensive approach to quality of mHealth interventions is needed.