Background: Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal.
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening.
Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model.
Results: We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types.
Conclusions: Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions.
Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411
The use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies and social media in the health care sphere has now become widespread [- ] and has enabled the rapid sharing of health information, the launching of health promotional campaigns, access to peer support groups, and facilitation of appointment reminders [ , , , ]. The World Health Organization has defined mHealth as the use of mobile wireless devices for medical and public health practice [ ]. Social media allows those with access to information and communication technology to become content creators and share content with others in virtual communities or networks in addition to accessing information and connecting communities [ , ]. The use of mHealth and social media for health presents an important opportunity to reach health consumers, as these technologies and platforms can provide more frequent interactions, deliver tailored material, and increase accessibility to health information [ ], and they now constitute a major way of communicating and advertising. In addition, as access to mobile devices and the internet in low- and middle-resource nations is reported to be comparable with those in developed countries, mHealth and social media may play a role in closing the gap in health disparities between high- and low-resource nations [ , ].
With almost 19 million people expected to be diagnosed with cancer in 2020, cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally . Cancer screening has been shown to reduce disease-specific mortality for a number of cancers [ - ], and as a result, many jurisdictions have implemented population-based screening programs [ , ]. However, screening participation remains suboptimal across jurisdictions and cancer types [ - ]. Emerging research has explored the use of social media and mHealth for cancer screening [ - ]. However, we currently lack an understanding of how effective mHealth and social media can be for cancer screening participation.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the effectiveness of social media and mHealth interventions to increase cancer screening participation and intention for screen detectable cancers.
Study Design and Registration
This systematic review was registered with the International PROSPERO (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; registration #CRD42019139615) and was written and reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist .
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies included in this systematic review were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies with a pre- and postintervention design reporting on the effectiveness of an mHealth or social media intervention on cancer screening participation or intention. We included studies pertaining to breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate, or lung cancer, as guidelines for screening exist for these cancers. We defined mHealth interventions as those that delivered health-related information via telecommunication or other wireless technologies (eg, smartphones and tablets) . Social media interventions included those delivered on an already established or new purpose-built social media platform where users could create a profile and share content with other users (virtual communities) [ ]. Any comparator was acceptable, including a nonintervention group; an alternate, nonsocial media, non-mHealth intervention; or studies with a pre- and postintervention design. We included studies with multifaceted interventions if at least one component involved a social media– or mHealth-based strategy. Studies were restricted to those conducted in adults aged 18 years or older and articles published in English. In case we were unable to access full-text articles for relevant abstracts, we contacted study authors to obtain the articles. If the authors did not respond, we included the abstract if we could ascertain the eligibility criteria and if the data on the primary or secondary outcome were available. Commentaries, editorials, letters, and reviews were excluded. We also excluded articles published before 2000 because the use of social media was not widespread before this time [ ].
The search strategy was developed by a senior information specialist (TK) and used a combination of text words and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms depending on the database to capture the following concepts: cancer, screening, and social media or mHealth interventions. The search strategy was peer reviewed by a second information specialist in accordance with the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist  and has been previously published [ ].
The search was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from inception to May 31, 2019. The search was updated on July 17, 2020.
We used systematic review software (DistillerSR, Evidence Partners Incorporated) to manage records during the screening and study selection phases.
Two independent reviewers (AR and FD) used a piloted data collection form and screened the studies in three stages: title, abstract, and full text. Citations that either reviewer considered potentially eligible at the title stage were included to maximize sensitivity in the early stages of screening. Inclusion in the abstract and full-text screening stages required consensus between the reviewers. Discrepancies between the reviewers at the abstract or full-text stages were resolved by discussion.
Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies using a piloted data collection form in Excel (Version 15.0; Microsoft). Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Information extracted from each study included study characteristics (authors, date of publication, location or country, funding, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, age, sex, ethnicity, and eligibility), intervention details (type of intervention, components, comparator or control group interventions, follow-up or duration, technology platform, and delivery of intervention by whom), and outcomes of interest (screening participation or intention including timeframe).
Screening participation (primary outcome) was defined as the proportion of adults who participated in the screening. This included self-reported outcomes as well as those confirmed through administrative records. Screening intention (secondary outcome) was defined as per the primary study authors. Typically, this is measured as the written intention to undergo screening within a specified timeframe (eg, within the next 3 months or 6 months).
Assessment of Bias
The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool  was used to assess the quality of RCTs, and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care framework was used to assess bias in pre- and postintervention studies [ ]. The risk of bias assessment was independently completed for each study by 2 reviewers (AR and FD). Discrepancies were resolved by discussion or by a third investigator if needed. The Robvis tool was used to create a risk of bias plot [ ].
Data Synthesis and Analysis
The study, participant, and intervention characteristics and the risk of bias assessments are presented descriptively. We categorized interventions based on their nature, including (1) reminders, (2) education or awareness, (3) navigation or counseling, (4) peer support, (5) decision aids, and (6) mixed. We report on the outcomes of interest in absolute and relative terms and pooled odds ratios (ORs) for screening participation from RCTs using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model. If the outcome was measured at several time points, we used the values from the longest follow-up for our study. In RCTs where several intervention arms had a social media or mHealth component, we included them in our analysis and divided the proportion screened of the control or comparison group equally by the number of intervention arms of interest to maintain the same proportion of those screened while not counting the sample size of the control group more than once, as recommended by Cochrane . Forest plots were created to graphically display results stratified by cancer type and the nature of the intervention. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the I2 statistic, where a cutoff of ≥75% was defined as considerable heterogeneity [ ]. We conducted a sensitivity analysis in which we excluded articles that were assessed to have a high risk of bias. In addition, we conducted sensitivity analyses to explore whether the overall pooled effect estimate would differ for studies measuring the outcome of cancer screening participation through self-reporting compared with objective or administrative records and for studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We checked for publication bias for the primary outcome among the RCTs using a funnel plot. Statistical significance was set at a two-tailed P<.05. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager (RevMan, The Cochrane Collaboration) 5.0.
Search Results and Characteristics of Included Studies
A total of 18,008 records were identified in the search. After duplicates were removed, 17,788 titles, 2607 abstracts, and 687 full-text articles were screened. After all the eligibility criteria were applied, 39 articles were included [- ] ( ). presents a summary of the included RCTs (n=30), and presents an overview of the included pre- and postintervention studies (n=9). Briefly, the studies that were included were published between 2011 and 2020 and conducted in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Most of the studies (35/39, 90%) described mHealth interventions, and 10% (4/39) of them included social media. The most common type of intervention was mixed (n=19), followed by reminders (n=13), education or awareness (n=6), and peer support (n=1). Mixed interventions were most commonly a combination of reminder and education strategies. There were 16 studies focused on cervical cancer, 14 on colorectal cancer (CRC), 7 on breast cancer, and 1 each on lung and prostate cancer screening. The interventions were implemented by public or private screening programs, university-based research teams, or health care centers or units.
|Study||Location||Type of cancer||Intervention type||Nature of intervention||Total sample size||Population||Summary of intervention||Outcomes|
|Arcas et al ||Spain||Breast||mHealtha||Reminder||703||Women (aged 50-69 years) with a registered mobile phone number||Invitation letter and text message reminder 2 days before the mammography appointment|
|Vidal et al ||Barcelona, Spain||Breast||mHealth||Reminder||12,786||Breast cancer screening target population of the southern Barcelona metropolitan area||Text message reminder 3 days before a scheduled appointment with or without a message, with a new appointment date if requested|
|Kerrison et al ||United Kingdom||Breast||mHealth||Reminder||2240||Women (aged 47-53 years) who were due to be invited for their first routine breast screen||Text message reminder 48 hours before the appointment and an additional text message if they did not attend the initial appointment|
|Rashid et al ||Klang, Malaysia||Cervical||mHealth||Reminder||1000||Women (aged 20-65 years) residing in Klang who had a nonpositive Papanicolaou test in the previous year and were due for repeat screening||Text message reminder for a repeat Papanicolaou test within a month from the date of recall|
|Wanyoro and Kabiru ||Thika, Kenya||Cervical||mHealth||Reminder||286||Women (aged 25-70 years) attending the general outpatient clinic who had never had cervical cancer screening, who owned a mobile phone, and who had normal cervical Papanicolaou test after the initial baseline screening||4 text message reminders in a period of 2 weeks|
|Huf et al ||United Kingdom||Cervical||mHealth||Reminder||14,587||Women (aged 24-64 years)||1 of 6 text message reminders: a simple reminder, general practice endorsement, total and proportional social norms messages, and gain- and loss-framed messages|
|Sly et al ||New York, United States||CRCb||mHealth||Reminder||24||Adults (aged >50 years) with referral for screening colonoscopy with no personal or family history of CRC or any chronic gastrointestinal disorder, with telephone service, and who spoke English||Standard navigation, a scheduling telephone call and 2 text message appointment reminders|
|Hagoel et al ||Israel||CRC||mHealth||Reminder||48,091||Adults (aged 50-74 years) with no diagnosis of an inflammatory bowel disease or a bowel malignancy, who had not undergone colonoscopy within the previous 3 years, and who had not performed FOBTc in the previous year||Text message reminders including interrogative or noninterrogative messages|
|Coronado et al ||United States||CRC||mHealth||Reminder||2010||Adults (aged 50-75 years) not up to date with CRC screening and with a clinic visit in the previous year||2 text message reminders with or without a live phone call|
|Hirst et al ||United Kingdom||CRC||mHealth||Reminder||8269||Adults (aged 60-74 years)||Usual care and a text message reminder if they had not returned their test kit within 8 weeks|
|Lam et al ||Hong Kong||CRC||mHealth||Reminder||500||Adults (aged 40-70 years) who were asymptomatic and had a previous negative FIT test and who were expected for an annual FIT screening in the subsequent year||A WhatsApp message reminder sent 1 month before the due date for subsequent FIT|
|Coronado et al ||Los Angeles, United States||CRC||mHealth||Reminder||1767||Adults (aged 50-75 years) who were overdue for CRC screening and had attended at least two clinic visits within the past 24 months||Text message prompt before receipt of the FIT kit with 2 automated phone call reminders or with 2 automated phone calls and up to 3 live phone call reminders|
|Hwang et al ||United States||CRC||Social media||Peer support||306||Adults (aged 50-75 years) who had no previous diagnosis of CRC, had no history of inflammatory bowel disease, and were not up to date with CRC screening||Study-specific web-based SparkTeam to access the narratives and interact with the narrators (positive role models) and other participants|
|Lakkis et al ||Beirut, Lebanon||Breast||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||385||Women (aged 40-75 years) who had not undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years||Educational and general invitation text message for mammography and 3 additional text reminders|
|Chung et al ||Republic of Korea||Breast||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||202||Women (aged 20-65 years) who underwent surgery for breast cancer, excluding those with distant metastasis or recurrent breast cancer||Usual care and 1 text message reminder and 1 educational text message|
|Heydari and Noroozi ||Bushehr, Iran||Breast||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||120||Women (aged ≥40 years) who were elementary school teachers, were not pregnant or breast-feeding, had no history of cancer, had no family history of breast cancer, had not had breast biopsy experience and mammography in the past 3 years||Multimedia education session through a CD and text messages; 1-2 educational text messages sent on a weekly basis for 1 month and a reminder about mammography|
|Lee et al ||Minnesota, United States||Breast||mHealth||Mixed (education and navigation)||131||Korean American immigrant women (aged 40-79 years) who had not received a mammogram in the past 2 years||mMammogram mobile app delivering 8-21 messages over a 7-day period|
|Khademolhosseini et al ||Bushehr, Iran||Cervical||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||95||Women who were able to read and write, were married for at least 6 months, had a smartphone, had no history of genital tract cancer in their family, and had no experience of doing a Papanicolaou smear test in the past 3 years||Educational training through text messaging, electronic posters, infographics, podcasts, and video tutorial and a reminder to perform a Papanicolaou smear test|
|Richman et al ||North Carolina, United States||Cervical or rectal||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||264||Adults (aged 18-26 years) who attended the university and who were voluntarily initiating the first HPVf vaccine dose from the campus student health center||7 electronic email or text messages once per month for 7 months|
|Adler et al ||United States||Cervical||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||95||Women (aged 21-65 years) with no past hysterectomy with cervical removal or known HIV infection||Referral and 3 text messages delivered at 30-day intervals over a period of 90 days after enrollment|
|Erwin et al ||Kilimanjaro and Arusha regions, Tanzania||Cervical||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||851||Women (aged 25-49 years) with access to a mobile phone living in the catchment areas of Mawenzi Regional Referral Hospital and Meru District Hospital||15 unique text messages delivered over 21 days with or without a transportation e -voucher covering return transportation to the nearest screening clinic|
|Firmino-Machado et al ||Portugal||Cervical||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||1220||Women (aged 25-49 years) eligible for screening and registered at primary health care units that perform systematic written letter invitations for screening||Automated or customized text messages and phone calls, followed by text message reminders of the appointment (step 1), phone calls by clinical secretaries (step 2), and phone calls or face-to-face interviews by doctors (step 3)|
|Linde et al ||Tanzania||Cervical||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||689||Women (aged 25-60 years) who had tested positive for HPV during a patient-initiated opportunistic screening 14 months earlier||10 educative text messages (1 per month) and 5 reminders (14, 7, and 1 day before the scheduled screening appointment) over a 10-month period|
|Romli et al ||Kedah, Malaysia||Cervical||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||210||Women entrepreneurs (aged 20-65 years) who received financial help from Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia and who were or had been previously married||A 30-minute educational talk, a 5-minute video on Papanicolaou smear test procedures, experience sharing from a cervical cancer survivor, distribution of pamphlet on cervical cancer and Papanicolaou smear testing, and 2 text message reminders sent over a 3-month period|
|Baker et al ||Chicago, United States||CRC||mHealth||Mixed (education, reminder, and navigation)||450||Adults (aged 51-75 years) with preferred language listed as English or Spanish and with a negative FOBT||A mailed reminder letter and FIT kit with postage-paid envelope, automated telephone and text message reminders, and personal telephone outreach by a screening navigator after 3 months|
|Muller et al ||Anchorage, Alaska||CRC||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||2386||Alaska Native or American Indian adults (aged 40-75 years) with no history of CRC or colectomy enrolled with the Southcentral Foundation health care system and eligible for screening||A maximum of 3 text messages over 2 months|
|Miller et al ||North Carolina, United States||CRC||mHealth||Mixed (education and decision aid)||450||English-speaking adults (aged 50-74 years) who were scheduled to see a primary care provider and were due for CRC screening||mPATH-CRC, an iPad app providing screening information, help with screening decision, self-ordering a screening test, and automated electronic messages to complete the chosen test|
|Reiter et al ||United States||Rectal||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||150||Gay or bisexual men (aged 18-25 years) residing in the United States who had not received any HPV vaccine doses||Population-targeted, individually tailored content about HPV and monthly HPV vaccination reminders sent via email and/or text message|
|Wong et al ||Hong Kong||CRC||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||629||Adults (aged 40-70 years) at average risk of CRC who had a negative FIT result in their first screening round for the study||Generic text message about the importance of regular CRC screening and the time and venue of FIT tube retrieval|
|Mahmud et al ||United States||CRC||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminder)||71||Adults (aged 18-75 years) scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy within 2 months of initial contact||9 text messages sent in the week before the scheduled procedure|
amHealth: mobile health.
bCRC: colorectal cancer.
cFOBT: fecal occult blood test.
dFIT: fecal immunochemical test.
eBSE. breast self-exam.
fHPV: human papilloma virus.
The most common reminder strategies used were text message reminders [- , - , - , - ]. Educational strategies most commonly included general health information about the specific cancer and information about cancer screening, including the importance of screening. Although text messages were commonly used to deliver educational information [ , , , - , , , , - , , , , ], some studies also used electronic posters or infographics, CDs, videos, mobile apps, and podcasts [ , , , , , , ]. Education was also provided through in-person educational or training sessions in some cases in addition to a social media or mHealth strategy or in the comparison groups [ , ]. Educational interventions using social media included social media campaigns [ ] or sharing information or daily posts about screening or cancer with participants who were members of a group (virtual community) on a social media platform [ , ]. Peer support interventions on social media also leveraged groups to support participants of that virtual community through the sharing of personal stories and narratives [ ]. Outcomes were measured at several time points, including the proportion attending a scheduled appointment or those participating in screening within 2 weeks [ ], a month [ ], 45 days [ ], 60 days [ , , , ], 3 months [ , , ], 3-5 months [ , , ], or 6 months [ , , , , , , ].
There was wide variability in the study participants. For example, the included participants were targeted based on geographical region in some studies [, , ] or by their profession as elementary school teachers [ ], entrepreneurs [ ], or university students [ , ]. Some studies were targeted to specific racial and cultural groups [ , , , , ], whereas others included gay and bisexual men only [ ] or women who were HIV positive [ ]. The intervention intensity also differed between the studies. For example, some interventions included sending only a single text message reminder [ , , , , , , ], whereas others included sending 22 text messages over 16 days [ ] or 21 messages over a 7-day period [ ]. For social media interventions, participants in one study received three daily posts over a 12-week period [ ] or as many as 20 posts per day over 5 days [ ].
|Study||Location||Type of cancer||Intervention type||Nature of intervention||Total sample size||Population||Summary of intervention||Outcomes|
|Ganta et al ||Nevada, United States||Cervical||mHealtha||Reminder||473||HIV-infected women (aged ≥18 years) at the HIV Wellness Center||Reminders to schedule a Papanicolaou test via 3 sequential text messages and subsequently by 3 phone call attempts|
|Lee et al ||Minnesota, United States||Cervical||mHealth||Education or awareness||30||Korean American women (aged 21-29 years) with no previous receipt of a Papanicolaou test with up-to-date health insurance||7-day text message–based intervention including quizzes and questions and engagement in conversation|
|Lemos et al ||Madeira, Portugal||Cervical||mHealth||Education or awareness||144||Female college students recruited from various undergraduate courses of Madeira University||5 structured text messages delivered over 5 weeks and an educational video intervention lasting 12 minutes|
|Le and Holt ||United States||Cervical||mHealth||Education or awareness||52||Church-attending African-American women (aged 21-65 years) with no previous medical history of cervical cancer or hysterectomy||22 text messages delivered over 16 days, containing health-specific and spiritually based content|
|Lyson et al ||United States||Cervical||Social media||Education or awareness||782||Women (aged ≥18 years) who lived in the United States, spoke English as their primary language, and did not have cervical cancer||Health Connect web-based platform where participants were assigned to groups of 9 and where each participant was randomly distributed a set of 20 tweets or messages per day over 5 days in a personalized message feed|
|Key et al ||Kentucky, United States||CRCc||Social media||Education or awareness||60||Appalachian Kentuckians (aged ≥50 years) noncompliant with current screening guidelines||Participants joined a closed Facebook group and were presented with 3 daily Facebook posts during the 12-week intervention|
|Jessup et al ||Massachusetts, United States||Lung||Social media||Education or awareness||Variable depending on platform||Patients, caregivers, and health care providers within a 60-mile radius of a large quaternary medical center and 2 affiliated off-campus imaging sites. Patient campaign targeted current and former smokers (aged ≥55 years), females (aged ≥55 years), patients and employees of the academic medical center (aged ≥18 years), and caregivers (aged ≥18 years)||Patient awareness campaign on Facebook and Google and provider campaign on LinkedIn and Twitter|
|Fornos et al ||Texas, United States||Cervical||mHealth||Mixed (education, reminders, and navigation)||32,807||Women (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in CareLink who were not up to date with Papanicolaou screening or actively obtaining Papanicolaou test appointments||Newsletters, public service announcements, automated client reminders including text messages, and community outreach|
|Capik and Gozum ||Erzurum, Turkey||Prostate||mHealth||Mixed (education and reminders)||75||Men (aged 41-65 years) working in 2 public institutions who had not received a prostate cancer diagnosis||Poster announcements, interactive educational session, access to website, desk calendar information and reminders, monthly email reminders, flyers, and 1 text message|
amHealth: mobile health.
bHPV: human papilloma virus.
cCRC: colorectal cancer.
dFOBT: fecal occult blood test.
eLDCT: low-dose computed tomography.
fPSA: prostate-specific antigen.
Risk of bias assessments for the included studies are shown inand . Briefly, 27% (8/30) of the included RCTs were classified as high risk, 23% (7/30) as having some concerns, and the remainder (15/30, 50%) were classified as low risk. Common reasons for being classified as high risk included having some concerns in several domains, including bias arising from the randomization process, effect of assignment to intervention, and measurement of the outcome. All pre- and postintervention studies were classified as high risk. displays the funnel plot used to check for publication bias. The x-axis represents the effect estimates, whereas the y-axis represents the study size or precision. The funnel plot generated may suggest some publication bias because of the lack of studies in the bottom left corner of the plot representing studies with small effect sizes and variances.
Primary and Secondary Outcomes
The absolute effect of being screened in the intervention arms was 22.22% (13,115/59,017). There was an absolute risk difference of 14% (95% CI 13.12-14.33) between the intervention and comparison arms, with the proportion screened in the comparison arms being 35.94% (12,524/34,872). When stratified by cancer type, the absolute proportion screened in the intervention arms was 71.68% (3935/5489) for breast cancer compared with 64.11% (7096/11,067) in the comparison arms (risk difference 8%; 95% CI 6.08-9.06). For cervical cancer, there were 35.23% (2382/6760) screened in the intervention arms compared with 28.26% (1548/5478) in the comparison arms. For CRC, the proportion screened in the intervention arms was 14.53% (6798/46,768) and 21.17% (3880/18,327) in the comparison arms, with a risk difference of 6% (95% CI 5.96-7.31).
The overall pooled OR for cancer screening participation among the included RCTs was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70;), indicating that the odds of getting screened increased by 49% for those who received a social media or mHealth intervention. However, considerable heterogeneity was observed (I2=88%). Similar effect estimates were observed when stratified by cancer type, with the largest effect observed for cervical cancer screening studies (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.34-2.19; ). Stratification by cancer type did not reduce the heterogeneity. When we conducted a sensitivity analysis excluding trials assessed to have a high risk of bias, the overall pooled OR and I2 remained stable (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.33-1.78; ). The overall pooled OR was not significant when including only studies measuring screening participation through self-reporting (OR 2.09, 95% CI 0.96-4.53). The overall pooled effect estimate remained stable when including only studies that captured the outcome through administrative records (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.28-1.66). When we included only studies conducted in LMIC settings (n=3), the overall pooled OR was 3.29 (95% CI 1.02-10.60) with considerable heterogeneity (I2=93%). However, the pooled OR increased to 5.50 (95% CI 3.19-9.51) with only moderate heterogeneity (I2=38%) when only studies with a low risk of bias were included (n=2). We also conducted subgroup analyses by meta-analyzing studies based on the nature of the intervention. The results showed an overall pooled effect estimate of 1.23 (95% CI 1.08-1.41) for reminder interventions ( ) and 2.07 (95% CI 1.49-5.83) for mixed interventions ( ). Heterogeneity did not change when subgroup analyses were conducted.
presents the results of the secondary outcomes of screening intention. Six studies (3 RCTs and 3 pre- and postintervention studies) reported on screening intention, with two studies reporting on screening intention only. There was minor variability in the measurement of screening intention among the studies. For example, screening intention was treated as a dichotomous variable in some studies [ , , , ] or scored using a four-point [ ] or five-point [ ] Likert scale in others. Half of the studies (3/6, 50%) focused on cervical cancer, followed by breast cancer (2/6, 33%) and CRC (1/6, 17%). The intention to screen increased in all studies reporting on this outcome, except for one in which it decreased. The highest increase in screening intention was observed in the study by Lee et al [ ], where there was a 24% absolute increase in the intent to receive a Papanicolaou test postintervention (19/30, 63% preintervention and 26/30, 87% postintervention). The study included a 7-day text message–based intervention that included a high level of engagement with participants through quizzes, questions, and engagement in conversation [ ]. Owing to the variability in how screening intention was measured or captured, we did not perform a meta-analysis on these data.
|Study||Study design||Outcome definition||Timeframe for assessing outcome||Outcome in comparison group (if RCTa) or preintervention||Outcome in intervention group (if RCT) or postintervention|
|Heydari and Noroozi ||RCT||Intention to get a mammogram (yes or no)||3 months||93% (56/60)||83% (50/60)|
|Lee et al ||RCT||Intention to receive a mammogram in the future on a 4-point scale (1=not within a year, 2=within a year, 3=within 3 months, and 4=within 1 month) among intervention and control groups||1-week postintervention||Group differences preintervention −0.64||Group differences postintervention 3.48|
|Miller et al ||RCT||Intention to receive screening measured through the postprogram iPad survey||6 months||49% (112/227)||62% (138/223)|
|Le and Holt ||Pre- and postintervention||Intent to get a Papanicolaou smear test (yes or no)||6 months||48% (22/46)||52% (24/46)|
|Lee et al ||Pre- and postintervention||Intent to receive a Papanicolaou test (yes or no)||Within 1 year||63% (19/30)||87% (26/30)|
|Lemos et al ||Pre- and postintervention||Intention to get a Papanicolaou test measured on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (definitely will not do) to 5 (definitely will do)||6 weeks||4.50 (SD 0.64)||4.82 (SD 0.48)|
aRCT: randomized controlled trial.
Our systematic review identified 39 studies describing the effectiveness of social media and mHealth interventions on cancer screening participation and/or intention. The overall pooled OR for cancer screening participation was significant, favoring the intervention arm (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.31-1.70). Effect sizes were similar across all cancer types, and estimates remained stable when trials deemed to be at high risk of bias were excluded, indicating that social media, and particularly mHealth interventions, can be effective for increasing cancer screening participation.
Two systematic reviews on this topic were published in 2017 [, ]. Uy et al [ ] evaluated the effectiveness of text messaging interventions on cancer screening and identified nine studies that met the inclusion criteria. Absolute screening rates for text messaging interventions were 1%-15% higher and relative screening rates were 4%-63% higher for intervention recipients in their study [ ]. The authors concluded that text messaging interventions moderately increased screening rates for breast and cervical cancer; however, additional research is needed to better quantify this relationship [ ]. Tamuzi et al [ ] explored mHealth interventions for cervical cancer screening only. Their review identified 17 studies, and the authors were able to perform a meta-analysis on the results by type of intervention [ ]. However, their definition of mHealth was different from ours. In their study, Tamuzi et al [ ] included telephone, letter, and text message reminders, whereas only text message reminders were included in our study based on our adopted definition of mHealth interventions. Text message reminders are different from these other approaches because they are sent only to mobile devices compared with telephone calls, which may be made to landlines, for which coverage has been decreasing. In addition, text messages can be sent instantly, whereas letter or postcard reminders need to be delivered by the post. Moreover, text messages have the opportunity to reach those with no fixed addresses. For example, a recent systematic review on technology use among homeless adults showed that a majority (94%) owned a cell phone [ ]. Overall, Tamuzi et al [ ] found that call reminders were the only intervention to show a statistically significant pooled effect estimate. Only one study included in their review reported on the effect of text message reminders, and a meta-analysis of this type of intervention was, therefore, not possible [ ].
The results of this study enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of social media and mHealth interventions for cancer screening. Although both previous reviews were published in 2017, nearly 44% (17/39) of the studies in this area have been published since that time. Our review provides a comprehensive and more contemporary understanding of this topic. In addition, although previous reviews focused primarily on breast and cervical cancer, our study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of these interventions in CRC screening as well. We included 13 studies focused on CRC in our meta-analysis and found a significant pooled effect estimate, suggesting that the use of these types of interventions can be extended to CRC as well. In comparison with the study by Uy et al , we found that absolute screening rates between the intervention and comparison groups were higher in our study. This may suggest that multicomponent interventions that couple social media or mHealth with additional strategies may be more effective at increasing screening rates compared with mHealth or social media strategies alone.
The results of our study must also be understood within the larger context of interventions for cancer screening. Brouwers et al  conducted a systematic review of interventions for increasing cancer screening rates and looked at client reminders, client incentives, mass media, small media, group education, one-on-one education, reducing structural barriers, reducing out-of-pocket costs to clients, provider assessment and feedback, and provider incentives. Similarly, the authors found wide heterogeneity across studies and interventions and chose not to meta-analyze their data. For example, their results showed that small media interventions, including videos or printed materials such as letters, brochures, newspapers, magazines, and billboards, resulted in a point percentage increase for cancer screening participation ranging from −32.8% to 26% among studies on breast cancer, cervical cancer, and CRC [ ]. Our review showed that the absolute difference between the intervention and comparison arms was 14%. The magnitude of effect varied considerably among and between intervention categories in the review by Brouwers et al [ ], suggesting that additional evidence is needed for interventions related to client reminders, mass media, group education, one-on-one education, reduction of structural barriers and out-of-pocket costs, and provider incentive interventions. Given the need for additional, high-quality evidence, it is difficult to ascertain whether social media and mHealth interventions fare similar, better, or worse than non-mHealth or non–social media interventions. In addition, costs should also be considered when making any comparisons between the effectiveness of these interventions to inform the translation of these findings into practice.
Although the pooled effect estimate in our meta-analysis was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses, significant heterogeneity remained. This may be because of the variability in populations, interventions, or outcome measurement across studies. For example, the populations randomized in the studies in our review included all adults up to 79 years , or highly specialized populations such as emergency department patients [ ] or HIV-positive individuals [ ]. Moreover, many of the studies included insured samples, which may not be reflective of population-level interventions, and therefore, must be considered in the generalizability of these results. In addition, the follow-up and the intensity of each intervention varied across studies. For example, some studies may have sent a single text message reminder [ ], whereas other interventions included sending multiple text messages in combination with telephone reminders [ ]. Interestingly, when we looked at studies conducted in LMIC settings and excluded those with a high risk of bias, the overall pooled OR was even larger with only moderate heterogeneity. These results suggest that the effectiveness of these interventions for cancer screening participation may be more pronounced in these settings. This may be because there may be a limited number of other campaigns in these resource-low settings, whereas access to mobile phones and the internet has been reported to be comparable with that of developed nations [ ].
Only a limited number of studies (n=4) tested social media interventions. As such, our results are more indicative of the effectiveness of mHealth interventions. A narrative systematic review focusing on describing the characteristics of social media interventions used for cancer prevention and management found that cancer screening participation or intention was not measured in any of the 18 studies included in the review . The most common outcome measured in these studies was knowledge [ ]. Although research related to social media and cancer screening participation has started to emerge [ ], the inclusion of this work was limited in our review, as there are few RCTs and before and after comparisons also capturing the outcome of screening participation or intention. This suggests areas for future research to generate more evidence on the use of social media interventions for cancer screening participation. In addition, very few studies have been conducted on prostate and lung cancer screening, which is similar to what was observed in a previous study [ ].
Our review and meta-analysis included a variety of mHealth and social media interventions and multicomponent interventions. Our review is comprehensive and contemporary and uses a rigorous systematic approach to screen and review the literature. As such, it includes a large number of studies for the most established screening programs for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and CRC. Owing to the large number of studies included in our review, we were able to calculate pooled effect estimates by cancer type to inform practice and future research. However, this study has limitations. Although we made every effort to obtain full-text articles, there were some records identified from our search that we could not locate. We also did not calculate a Cohen κ coefficient to report the interrater reliability between the 2 reviewers. Our review is also limited in regard to social media interventions, as only four studies were identified, with only one RCT included in the meta-analysis. This may be a reflection of current practice or due to the fact that it may be more difficult to link direct patient outcomes with the use of social media.
In conclusion, our results suggest that mHealth interventions may have a significant effect on cancer screening participation, particularly for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and CRC screening. Screening programs should consider the use of mHealth interventions to increase screening participation. Further research focusing on social media interventions for cancer screening participation is needed, as there was insufficient evidence available at the time of this review.
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grants FDN-148470 and GSO-157853). The funding agency had no role in the design or conduct of the study. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Amina Benmessaoud and Alawia Sherif for their help with data management and Dr Rahim Moineddin, a thesis committee member for AR’s doctoral dissertation.
Conflicts of Interest
- World Health Organization. Global Difusion of eHealth: Making Universal Health Coverage Achievable. Report of the Third Global Survey on eHealth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016:1-160.
- Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(4):e85 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Maher CA, Lewis LK, Ferrar K, Marshall S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vandelanotte C. Are health behavior change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(2):e40 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Korda H, Itani Z. Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promot Pract 2013 Jan;14(1):15-23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bull SS, Levine DK, Black SR, Schmiege SJ, Santelli J. Social media-delivered sexual health intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 2012 Nov;43(5):467-474 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Prochaska JJ, Coughlin SS, Lyons EJ. Social media and mobile technology for cancer prevention and treatment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2017;37:128-137 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hagg E, Dahinten VS, Currie LM. The emerging use of social media for health-related purposes in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Int J Med Inform 2018 Jul;115:92-105. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Pineros M. Global cancer observatory: cancer tomorrow. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2018. URL: https://gco.iarc.fr/tomorrow [accessed 2020-09-15]
- Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol 2008 Jun;103(6):1541-1549. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009 Nov 17;151(10):727-737 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ciliska D, Warren R. Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2013 May 24;2:35 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sadate A, Occean BV, Beregi J, Hamard A, Addala T, de Forges H, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography. Eur J Cancer 2020 Jul;134:107-114. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L, Schoen RE, Sung JJ, Young GP, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 2015 Oct;64(10):1637-1649. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Cancer Screening in Canada: An overview of screening participation for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Toronto: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. 2015. URL: https://s22457.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Breast-Cervical-Colorectal-Screening-Participate-2015-EN.pdf [accessed 2020-09-15]
- Youlden DR, Cramb SM, Dunn NA, Muller JM, Pyke CM, Baade PD. The descriptive epidemiology of female breast cancer: an international comparison of screening, incidence, survival and mortality. Cancer Epidemiol 2012 Jun;36(3):237-248. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Singh H, Bernstein CN, Samadder JN, Ahmed R. Screening rates for colorectal cancer in Canada: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open 2015;3(2):149-157 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- 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 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Tamuzi JL. Effectiveness of mHealth to increase cervical cancer screening: systematic review of interventions. Int J Pul Res Sci 2017 Oct 27;2(3):555586. [CrossRef]
- Parackal M, Parackal S, Eusebius S, Mather D. The use of Facebook advertising for communicating public health messages: a campaign against drinking during pregnancy in New Zealand. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2017 Aug 10;3(3):e49 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Cavallo DN, Chou WS, McQueen A, Ramirez A, Riley WT. Cancer prevention and control interventions using social media: user-generated approaches. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014 Sep;23(9):1953-1956. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Valle CG, Tate DF. Engagement of young adult cancer survivors within a Facebook-based physical activity intervention. Transl Behav Med 2017 Dec;7(4):667-679 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. Press peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016 Dec;75:40-46 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ruco A, Dossa F, Tinmouth J, Llovet D, Kishibe T, Baxter NN. Social media and mobile health technology for cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open 2020 Feb 05;10(2):e035411 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- EPOC Resources for review authors. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). 2017. URL: https://tinyurl.com/2du6ffc4 [accessed 2020-09-15]
- McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods 2020 Apr 26:55-61 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2019:1-728.
- Arcas MM, Buron A, Ramis O, Esturi M, Hernández C, Macià F. [Can a mobile phone short message increase participation in breast cancer screening programmes?]. Rev Calid Asist 2014;29(4):188-196. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Baker DW, Brown T, Buchanan DR, Weil J, Balsley K, Ranalli L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2014 Aug;174(8):1235-1241. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Chung IY, Kang E, Yom CK, Kim D, Sun Y, Hwang Y, et al. Effect of short message service as a reminder on breast self-examination in breast cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare 2015 Apr;21(3):144-150. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Coronado GD, Rivelli JS, Fuoco MJ, Vollmer WM, Petrik AF, Keast E, et al. Effect of reminding patients to complete fecal immunochemical testing: a comparative effectiveness study of automated and live approaches. J Gen Intern Med 2018 Jan;33(1):72-78 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Coronado GD, Thompson JH, Petrik AF, Nyongesa DB, Leo MC, Castillo M, et al. Patient-refined messaging for a mailed colorectal cancer screening program: findings from the PROMPT study. J Am Board Fam Med 2019;32(3):318-328 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Erwin E, Aronson KJ, Day A, Ginsburg O, Macheku G, Feksi A, et al. SMS behaviour change communication and eVoucher interventions to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening in the Kilimanjaro and Arusha regions of Tanzania: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial of effectiveness. BMJ Innov 2019 Jan;5(1):28-34 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Firmino-Machado J, Varela S, Mendes R, Moreira A, Lunet N, SCAN-Cervical Cancer collaborators. A 3-step intervention to improve adherence to cervical cancer screening: the SCAN randomized controlled trial. Prev Med 2019 Jun;123:250-261. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hagoel L, Neter E, Stein N, Rennert G. Harnessing the question-behavior effect to enhance colorectal cancer screening in an mHealth experiment. Am J Public Health 2016 Nov;106(11):1998-2004. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Heydari E, Noroozi A. Comparison of two different educational methods for teachers' mammography based on the health belief model. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015;16(16):6981-6986 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hirst Y, Skrobanski H, Kerrison RS, Kobayashi LC, Counsell N, Djedovic N, et al. Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer 2017 May 23;116(11):1408-1414 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Huf S, Kerrison RS, King D, Chadborn T, Richmond A, Cunningham D, et al. Behavioral economics informed message content in text message reminders to improve cervical screening participation: two pragmatic randomized controlled trials. Prev Med 2020 Oct;139:106170. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hwang KO, Ottenbacher AJ, Graham AL, Thomas EJ, Street RL, Vernon SW. Online narratives and peer support for colorectal cancer screening: a pilot randomized trial. Am J Prev Med 2013 Jul;45(1):98-107. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kerrison RS, Shukla H, Cunningham D, Oyebode O, Friedman E. Text-message reminders increase uptake of routine breast screening appointments: a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population. Br J Cancer 2015 Mar 17;112(6):1005-1010 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Khademolhosseini F, Noroozi A, Tahmasebi R. The effect of health belief model-based education through Telegram instant messaging services on Pap smear performance. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2017 Aug 27;18(8):2221-2226 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lakkis NA, Atfeh AM, El-Zein YR, Mahmassani DM, Hamadeh GN. The effect of two types of sms-texts on the uptake of screening mammogram: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med 2011 Oct;53(4-5):325-327. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lee H, Ghebre R, Le C, Jang YJ, Sharratt M, Yee D. Mobile phone multilevel and multimedia messaging intervention for breast cancer screening: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Nov 07;5(11):e154 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Miller DP, Denizard-Thompson N, Weaver KE, Case LD, Troyer JL, Spangler JG, et al. Effect of a digital health intervention on receipt of colorectal cancer screening in vulnerable patients: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2018 Apr 17;168(8):550-557 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Muller CJ, Robinson RF, Smith JJ, Jernigan MA, Hiratsuka V, Dillard DA, et al. Text message reminders increased colorectal cancer screening in a randomized trial with Alaska Native and American Indian people. Cancer 2017 Apr 15;123(8):1382-1389. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Rashid RM, Mohamed M, Hamid ZA, Dahlui M. Is the phone call the most effective method for recall in cervical cancer screening?--results from a randomised control trial. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14(10):5901-5904 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Reiter PL, Katz ML, Bauermeister JA, Shoben AB, Paskett ED, McRee A. Increasing human papillomavirus vaccination among young gay and bisexual men: a randomized pilot trial of the outsmart HPV intervention. LGBT Health 2018 Jul;5(5):325-329 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Richman AR, Maddy L, Torres E, Goldberg EJ. A randomized intervention study to evaluate whether electronic messaging can increase human papillomavirus vaccine completion and knowledge among college students. J Am Coll Health 2016;64(4):269-278. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sly JR, Miller SJ, Jandorf L. The digital divide and health disparities: a pilot study examining the use of short message service (SMS) for colonoscopy reminders. J Rac Ethn Health Dispar 2014 Jul 11;1(4):231-237. [CrossRef]
- Vidal C, Garcia M, Benito L, Milà N, Binefa G, Moreno V. Use of text-message reminders to improve participation in a population-based breast cancer screening program. J Med Syst 2014 Sep;38(9):118-124. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Wanyoro A, Kabiru E. Use of mobile phone short text message service to enhance cervical cancer screening at Thika Level 5 hospital, Kiambu County, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Res Obstet Gynaecol 2017;5(1):10-20. [CrossRef]
- Wong MC, Ching JY, Huang J, Wong JC, Lam TY, Chan VC, et al. Effectiveness of reminder strategies on cancer screening adherence: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 2018 Sep;68(674):604-611 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Le D, Holt CL. CervixCheck: A spiritually-based text messaging intervention to promote cervical cancer awareness and Pap test screening intention among African-American women. J Health Commun 2018;23(9):842-853. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Capık C, Gözüm S. The effect of web-assisted education and reminders on health belief, level of knowledge and early diagnosis behaviors regarding prostate cancer screening. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2012 Feb;16(1):71-77 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Jessup DL, Glover IM, Daye D, Banzi L, Jones P, Choy G, et al. Implementation of digital awareness strategies to engage patients and providers in a lung cancer screening program: retrospective study. J Med Internet Res 2018 Feb 15;20(2):e52 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Fornos LB, Urbansky KA, Villarreal R. Increasing cervical cancer screening for a multiethnic population of women in South Texas. J Cancer Educ 2014 Mar;29(1):62-68. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lee HY, Koopmeiners JS, Rhee TG, Raveis VH, Ahluwalia JS. Mobile phone text messaging intervention for cervical cancer screening: changes in knowledge and behavior pre-post intervention. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(8):e196 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lemos M, Rothes I, Oliveira F, Soares L. Raising cervical cancer awareness: analysing the incremental efficacy of Short Message Service. Health Edu J 2017 Sep 14;76(8):956-970 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
- Ganta V, Moonie S, Patel D, Hunt AT, Richardson J, Di John D, et al. Timely reminder interventions to improve annual Papanicolaou (Pap) smear rates among HIV-infected women in an outpatient center of southern Nevada: a short report. AIDS Care 2017 Dec;29(9):1099-1101. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lam TY, Wong MC, Ching JY, Chan V, Ng SK, Hui SN, et al. 210 - Effectiveness of Whatsapp reminder on compliance with colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2018 May;154(6):58-59. [CrossRef]
- Adler D, Abar B, Wood N, Bonham A. An intervention to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening among emergency department patients: results of a randomized pilot study. J Emerg Med 2019 Dec;57(6):836-843 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Romli R, Shahabudin S, Saddki N, Mokhtar N. Effectiveness of a health education program to improve knowledge and attitude towards cervical cancer and Pap smear: a controlled community trial in Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2020 Mar 01;21(3):853-859 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Mahmud N, Doshi SD, Coniglio MS, Clermont M, Bernard D, Reitz C, et al. An automated text message navigation program improves the show rate for outpatient colonoscopy. Health Educ Behav 2019 Dec;46(6):942-946 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Linde DS, Andersen MS, Mwaiselage J, Manongi R, Kjaer SK, Rasch V. Effectiveness of one-way text messaging on attendance to follow-up cervical cancer screening among human papillomavirus-positive Tanzanian women (Connected2Care): parallel-group randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2020 Apr 02;22(4):e15863 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lyson HC, Le GM, Zhang J, Rivadeneira N, Lyles C, Radcliffe K, et al. Social media as a tool to promote health awareness: results from an online cervical cancer prevention study. J Cancer Educ 2019 Aug;34(4):819-822. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Key KV, Adegboyega A, Bush H, Aleshire ME, Contreras OA, Hatcher J. #CRCFREE: Using social media to reduce colorectal cancer risk in rural adults. Am J Health Behav 2020 May 01;44(3):353-363. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Rhoades H, Wenzel SL, Rice E, Winetrobe H, Henwood B. No digital divide? Technology use among homeless adults. J Soc Distress Homeless 2017 Mar 22;26(1):73-77 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Brouwers MC, De Vito C, Bahirathan L, Carol A, Carroll JC, Cotterchio M, et al. What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? A systematic review. Implement Sci 2011 Sep 29;6:111 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Han CJ, Lee YJ, Demiris G. Interventions using social media for cancer prevention and management: a systematic review. Cancer Nurs 2018;41(6):19-31 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Koïvogui A, Levi S, Finkler M, Lewkowicz S, Gombeaud T, Sabate JM, et al. Feasibility of encouraging participation in colorectal cancer screening campaigns by motivating people through the social network, Facebook. Colorectal Dis 2020 Oct;22(10):1325-1335. [CrossRef] [Medline]
|CRC: colorectal cancer|
|LMIC: low- and middle-income country|
|MeSH: Medical Subject Headings|
|mHealth: mobile health|
|OR: odds ratio|
|PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses|
|PROSPERO: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews|
|RCT: randomized controlled trial|
Edited by R Kukafka; submitted 31.12.20; peer-reviewed by L Guo, E Neter; comments to author 08.02.21; revised version received 15.02.21; accepted 21.06.21; published 30.07.21Copyright
©Arlinda Ruco, Fahima Dossa, Jill Tinmouth, Diego Llovet, Jenna Jacobson, Teruko Kishibe, Nancy Baxter. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 30.07.2021.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.