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.
Cancer is likely to remain the most prevalent noncommunicable disease in high-income countries with an older population. Interestingly, no review of attitudes toward telemedicine among older adults has been performed. This is likely to be the group most affected by both cancer and the increasing use of technology in health care.
We aimed to map research on the acceptance of telemedicine among older adults who are cancer patients.
We conducted a scoping review. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from inception to September 2020. Articles were included if the study population had a mean or median age ≥65 years, with cancer diagnoses and if the study assessed patients’ acceptance of a telemedicine intervention. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies were included.
Out of a total of 887 articles that were identified, 19 were included in the review. Interventions were delivered via telephone, videoconference, web portal, mobile app, wearable technology, and text messaging and included teleconsultation, monitoring and follow-up, psychosocial support and nursing care, and prompts. The most often cited facilitating factor was convenience. Other facilitators included an increase in telemedicine care accessibility, previous positive experiences of telemedicine, appropriate technical knowledge and support, decreased cost, physician recommendations, and privacy conferred by the telemedicine intervention. Barriers include a preference for conventional care along with negative perceptions of telemedicine, concerns about technical difficulties, and confidentiality concerns in the adoption of telemedicine.
None of the studies explored the ability of tailored interventions to address facilitators and barriers of the acceptance of telemedicine in order to increase its adoption by older adults. Facilitators and barriers will likely differ across different cultural contexts and by type of telemedicine; however, this is a gap in current knowledge. In-depth studies are necessary to determine if interventions could potentially address the barriers identified in this review, to increase acceptability.
Cancer is the among the most prevalent of noncommunicable diseases in high-income countries [
Interestingly, there is no universal definition of
While telemedicine could represent the next paradigm shift in global models of health care, barriers to its widespread adoption are present and can range from system-wide logistical issues to individual-level resistance, affecting patients, health care providers, and administrators. Crucially, while telemedicine adoption and use might be more intuitive in younger working adults who are likely to be more technologically savvy, it remains debatable how the incorporation of telemedicine into models of health care would be perceived among older adult patients, especially those with critical illness such as cancer [
The rapidly rising incidence of cancer among older adults [
In the UTAUT model, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions are 4 constructs that are direct determinants of behavioral intentions, and thus, of behavioral use:
Despite widespread use of
We based our review methodology and structure on an established example [
What is known from the literature about older adults (defined as ≥65 years old) who are cancer patients and their acceptance of the use of telemedicine?
Based on the protocol, 2 reviewers (SYF, CYHW) conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were selected based on recommendations [
To further reduce the likelihood of missing relevant articles, we manually searched the reference lists of articles included in the review.
First, as our study population of interest was older adults (defined as 65 years or older), we included only articles that had a study population with an average (mean or median) age that was 65 years or older. This ensured that there was a majority representation (at least 50% or more) of views of older adults in the reported outcomes. Studies that did not report mean or median age were, therefore, excluded. Second, only studies involving patients with cancer were included; cancer was defined as a malignant growth or tumor resulting from an uncontrolled division of cells. Third, studies must have included the use of telemedicine. Given that there has been no clear definition of telemedicine in the literature [
Duplicates were removed from the list of articles returned by the searches (manually and using EndNote X8). Two reviewers (SYF, CYHW) screened the titles and abstracts of all the articles independently to select articles for full-text review. Articles were included if at least one reviewer deemed it potentially suitable. Four reviewers (NQP, SYF, CYHW, JL) were involved in the review of full-text articles. Each full text was independently reviewed by at least 2 of the reviewers: full texts were evenly distributed among reviewers, and a second reviewer was assigned to independently verify each set, with moderate (based on [
Data, relevant information on key study characteristics, and detailed information on the acceptance of telemedicine among older adults patients with cancer were extracted from the articles included in the review. Two reviewers (SYF, CYHW) independently charted data, discussed the results, and iteratively updated the data-charting form. The final data fields collected included the aim of the study, background or context, average (mean or median) age of participants, type of telehealth intervention (eg, teleconsultation, monitoring, nursing), telehealth technology used, presence of comparator arm, duration of intervention, outcome measured, methods of measuring outcomes (instrument or scales used), and key findings. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or adjudication (by a third reviewer, JL).
A total of 887 articles were identified, from which 211 duplicates were removed, leaving 676 articles for title and abstract screening. Of these, 513 articles were excluded, and 163 articles underwent full-text review, during which, 137 articles were excluded (
Study selection flowchart.
More than two-thirds (14/19, 73.7%) of studies were performed in the United Kingdom and United States, and the rest were from other high-income countries; none were conducted in low- or middle-income nations. A clear increase in publication frequency was noted after the year 2010, with 21.1% (4/19) of studies published in the period from 2011 to 2015, and 57.9% (11//19) of studies published in the period from 2016 to 2020. More than half (10/19, 52.6%) of the studies were cross-sectional (nonrandomized trial: 2/19, 10.5%; pre- and posttest: 1/19, 5.3%; randomized controlled trial: 2/19, 10.5%: qualitative: 4/19, 21.1%). Sample sizes ranged from n≤50 (6/19, 31.6%) to n>300 (1/19, 5.3%). The 19 studies included a range of different cancers (
Population and study characteristics.
Characteristics | Articles (n=19), n (%) | ||
|
|
||
|
Canada | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Denmark | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Germany | 2 (10.5) | |
|
The Netherlands | 1 (5.3) | |
|
United Kingdom | 7 (36.8) | |
|
United States | 7 (36.8) | |
|
|
||
|
1995-2000 | 2 (10.5) | |
|
2001-2005 | 1 (5.3) | |
|
2006-2010 | 1 (5.3) | |
|
2011-2015 | 4 (21.1) | |
|
2016-2020 | 11 (57.9) | |
|
|
||
|
Cross-sectional | 10 (52.6) | |
|
Nonrandomized trial | 2 (10.5) | |
|
Pre- and posttest | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Randomized controlled trial | 2 (10.5) | |
|
Qualitative | 4 (21.1) | |
|
|
||
|
≤50 | 6 (31.6) | |
|
51-100 | 4 (21.1) | |
|
101-200 | 6 (31.6) | |
|
201-300 | 2 (10.5) | |
|
>300 | 1 (5.3) | |
|
|
||
|
Breast | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Colorectal | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Endometrial | 3 (15.8) | |
|
Esophagogastric | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Hematological | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Lung | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Prostate | 2 (10.5) | |
|
Skin | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Mixed | 8 (42.1) |
Studies included interventions delivered via telephone (6/19, 31.6%), videoconference (4/19, 21.1%), web portal (2/19, 10.5%), mobile app (3/19, 15.8%), wearable technology (1/19, 5.3%), or text message (1/19, 5.3%). Of the 19 articles, 2 articles (10.5%) surveyed patients on technology in general (ie, without specifying a technology). Telemedicine interventions included teleconsultation (2/19, 10.5%), monitoring and follow-up (7/19, 36.8%), psychosocial support and nursing care (5/19, 26.3%), and prompts (eg, to increase treatment adherence) (2/19, 10.5%). Of the 19 articles, 3 articles (15.8%) did not specify a particular telemedicine intervention, and participants in 5 studies (26.3%) did not actually use the technology in question—they were surveyed on their acceptance of that particular technology based on their impression of its usage (
Technology and intervention characteristics.
Characteristic | Articles (n=19), n (%) | ||
|
|
||
|
Telephone | 6 (31.6) | |
|
Mobile text | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Videoconferencing | 4 (21.1) | |
|
Web portal | 2 (10.5) | |
|
Mobile app | 3 (15.8) | |
|
Wearable technology | 1 (5.3) | |
|
Technology in general | 2 (10.5) | |
|
|
||
|
Teleconsultation | 2 (10.5) | |
|
Monitoring and follow-up | 7 (36.8) | |
|
Psychosocial support and nursing care | 5 (26.3) | |
|
Prompts | 2 (10.5) | |
|
Not specified or general | 3 (15.8) | |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 14 (73.7) | |
|
No | 5 (26.3) |
Four studies [
Of the 19 articles, 15 articles reported either facilitators or barriers to explain their findings on acceptance; the other 4 articles did not [
Key telemedicine acceptance findings.
Type of telemedicine and reference | Type of study | Aim of study | Key findings | ||||
|
|||||||
|
Allen et al (1995) [ |
Pre- and posttest study (n=21) | To assess levels of satisfaction (acceptance) among rural cancer patients being seen for clinic visits by using interactive videoconferencing |
Patients were less inclined to want to use video system again when asked after attending an on-site consultation (P=.016) |
|||
Mair et al (2000) [ |
Qualitative (n=22) | To understand patients' views of telemedicine consultations |
Participants felt that there was a difference in telemedicine consultations vs face-to-face visits (eg, modified behavior of patients) but were accepting of these differences to increase their access to health care and medical expertise |
||||
|
|||||||
|
Overend et al (2008) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=53) | To determine whether nurse-led telephone clinic could effectively and safely be used to follow patients with indolent and chronic hematological malignancies |
62% of participants felt strongly that they would participate in a Teleclinic again rather than travel to see their oncologist |
|||
Beaver et al (2011) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=187) | To explore patient satisfaction on different aspects of follow-up service provision following treatment for colorectal cancer and amenability to an alternative strategy for follow-up care |
66% of patients mentioned that they would be willing to receive telephone follow-up care in the future Male patients were 2 times more likely to indicate willingness for telephone follow-up |
||||
Verma et al (2015) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=134) | To evaluate a radiographer-led telephone follow-up for patients with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer patients completing radiotherapy |
67 out of 88 (76%) expressed a preference for telephone follow-up, while 7% expressed no preference between clinic or telephone follow-up and 5.5% expressed preference for outpatient clinic follow-up |
||||
Onuma et al (2019) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=271) | To determine patient preferences around the preferred means of receiving information about cancer surveillance (secure digital communication versus phone call or office visit) |
Patients >65 years preferred telephone or in-person communication of normal imaging results (ORa 2.03, 95% CI 1.16-3.56, P<.05) versus patients ≤65 years; all patients preferred telephone or in-person consult for abnormal results |
||||
Smits et al (2015) [ |
Nonrandomized trial (n=296) | To evaluate the effect of nurse led follow-up on quality of life and patient satisfaction compared to conventional follow-up in women treated for endometrial cancer and to evaluate the patient acceptance of nurse-led follow-up |
Majority of women (98%) in the nurse-led follow-up group stated that they would like to continue their follow-up care with the nurse-led telephone clinic Women in both groups reported equal satisfaction with care |
||||
Wynter-Blyth et al (2017) [ |
Pre- and posttest (n=9) | To explore the perioperative potential of home remote-monitoring (eg, on adherence to prehabilitation and rehabilitation programs) |
All 9 patients mentioned that they would recommend home remote-monitoring to other patients and 8 out of 9 said that they would consider buying their own personal health monitoring devices Helped to build their confidence in managing their condition and allowed them to play a more active role in their overall health, such as improving their adherence to exercise and diet |
||||
Nugteren et al (2017) [ |
Qualitative (n=20) | To investigate patients' opinions about the use of eHealth apps to support self-management in survivorship care |
Majority of participants would like to use the app as they have positive attitudes toward the app |
||||
|
|||||||
|
Xu et al (2014) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=230) | To model intention of lung cancer patients to using face-to-face and online lung cancer support groups |
Positive intentions to join an online support group were reported by 34% of participants, whereas for the face-to-face support group, positive intentions to join were reported by 36.4% of participants |
|||
Beaver et al (2020) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=211) | To explore the preferences of endometrial cancer patients and their levels of satisfaction with hospital vs nurse-led telephone follow-up |
Participants tended to prefer what was familiar to them; those in the hospital follow-up group tended to prefer hospital-based appointments while the telephone follow-up group tended to prefer appointments with a clinical nurse specialist, regardless of locality |
||||
Bohnenkamp et al (2004) [ |
Nonrandomized trial (n=28) | To measure the impact of telenursing on patients discharged with ostomies resulting from cancer treatment (telenursing + home health visit vs only home health visit) |
87% said they would prefer telenursing visit over waiting for a face-to-face visit 70% said that they would prefer a face-to-face visit (if no waiting time required) even though 85% agreed that the telenursing visit was as good as a face-to-face visit 93% of patients were satisfied with the telenursing combined with home health visit, while 81% were satisfied with just the home health visit (P<.01) |
||||
Bouchard et al (2019) [ |
Randomized controlled trial (n=192) | To examine the acceptability and efficacy for reducing disease-specific distress of a tablet-delivered psychosocial intervention for older men with advanced prostate cancer |
Average exit survey responses were favorable and similar for intervention (mean 3.53, SD 0.55) and control (mean 3.65, SD 0.41; P>.05) |
||||
Williamson et al (2018) [ |
Qualitative (n=25) | To explore the views of women with endometrial cancer who had received telephone follow-up compared to hospital follow-up |
Patients generally preferred telephone follow-up compared to hospital follow-up |
||||
|
|||||||
|
Spoelstra et al (2016) [ |
Randomized controlled trial (n=75) | To conduct a preliminary evaluation of the efficacy of telemedicine with respect to adherence and symptom severity and interference in adult cancer patients prescribed Oral Anticancer medication |
97.4% recommended it as a way to assist patients to remember to take medications and 100% would recommend it to their oncologist as a way to monitor adherence 85.7% of participants completed the entire telemedicine intervention, suggesting that there is high acceptability Majority of participants (92.2%) reported high satisfaction |
|||
Brett et al (2018) [ |
Qualitative (n=18) | To assess the likely acceptability of an eHealth app in women who have utilized the app to support women prescribed adjuvant endocrine therapy after treatment for breast cancer |
All participants except one said that they would recommend the app to women taking adjuvant endocrine therapy |
||||
|
|||||||
|
Steeb et al (2019) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=200) | To investigate patient attitudes and their awareness toward skin cancer–related apps |
Most patients (86/126, 68.3%) rated scientifically reliable information as the most important feature for health-related apps, followed by user convenience (76/126, 60.3%) and data security (76/126, 60.3%) For 54.0% (68/126) of patients, credibility of the app provider was important 29.6% (37/125) and 25.4% (32/126) considered a low price and an attractive layout as critical, respectively |
|||
Rossen et al (2019) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=305) | To get insight of how receptive cancer survivors are toward using health technology for physical activity rehabilitation |
88 participants (28.9%) were unreceptive toward supplementing their rehabilitation with technology devices |
||||
Rodler et al (2020) [ |
Cross-sectional (n=92) | To determine patients’ perspective on adoption of telehealth as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic |
General sustainability of telehealth beyond pandemic: majority (65.9%) not inclined to continue telehealth measures Type of treatment plays a role in telehealth acceptance: patients on immunotherapy are more willing to continue with telehealth measures than patients on chemotherapy |
aOR: odds ratio.
Facilitators and barriers to telemedicine acceptance.
Reference | Facilitators | Barriers |
Allen et al (1995) [ |
N/Aa |
Patients found that it was more difficult to be completely candid over the video consult than during the in-person consultation, when asked after the on-site consultation (P=.024) |
Mair et al (2000) [ |
100% of patients expressed positive attitudes regarding satisfaction with telemedicine; mainly due to convenience of access |
50% expressed confidentiality concerns, and 50% felt telemedicine cannot fully replace face-to-face consults 41% were uneasy with the nurse as proxy for physical exam |
Overend et al (2008) [ |
78% of participants felt strongly that the teleclinic was convenient and/or saved them time and money |
Younger patients who lived one to two hours away from the cancer center declined participation in the teleclinic, as they did not consider the distance an inconvenience Some patients took the opportunity to shop when they came for follow-up visits and did not regard it always as an inconvenience |
Beaver et al (2011) [ |
Greater satisfaction with the time given by professionals, practical advice, dietary information and comfort in contacting a colorectal nurse between appointments predicted for acceptance of telephone follow-up |
N/A |
Verma et al (2015) [ |
79 out of 88 patients (92%) who completed the satisfaction questionnaires reported that telephone follow-up was more or equally convenient as compared to clinic attendance |
N/A |
Onuma et al (2019) [ |
N/A | N/A |
Smits et al (2015) [ |
N/A | N/A |
Wynter-Blyth et al (2017) [ |
Usability of the equipment was high, with 8 out of 9 participants finding the app and home remote-monitoring devices clear to navigate and easy to use |
5 out of 9 patients experienced difficulties in reliability of the equipment, such as connection issues |
Nugteren et al (2017) [ |
Perception that the app increases awareness of symptoms, concerns and supportive care possibilities and improves accessibility |
Concerns include: use of the app might be dependent on the current mood and state of the patient (eg, if unwell), preference for face-to-face contact, ease of use, need for concise and simple information, personalized advice as well as the importance of privacy |
Xu et al (2014) [ |
Greater computer familiarity increases intention to join online support groups |
Having more negative attitudes about online support groups decreases intention to join online support groups. Older age, being male and lower levels of education were associated with more negative attitudes about online support groups |
Beaver et al (2020) [ |
telephone follow-up group more likely to indicate that follow-up appointments were always on time and more thorough compared to hospital follow-up group. Overall greater satisfaction with information received (more info is provided via telephone follow-up). Positive comments for telephone follow-up: knowing who to contact, convenience, being reassured |
Negative comments for telephone follow-up: preference for face-to-face contact, missing reassurance of clinical exam, feeling isolated/unsettled and problems with organizing telephone appointments |
Bohnenkamp et al (2004) [ |
100% of patients agreed that telenursing increased accessibility of care Less expenses due to less frequent pouch changes |
15% of telenursing subjects reported that the camera and new technology embarrassed them |
Bouchard et al (2019) [ |
N/A | N/A |
Williamson et al (2018) [ |
Telephone follow-up was more convenient for patients than hospital follow-up; patients did not have to rely on, or feel they were inconveniencing relatives or friends who would usually take them to hospital appointments, which promoted independence; easier to manage their day Patients found telephone follow-up reassuring and said they found it easier to self-manage than when they were receiving hospital follow-up telephone follow-up provided them with privacy that they perceived was not available at their hospital appointments |
N/A |
Spoelstra et al (2016) [ |
N/A | N/A |
Brett et al (2018) [ |
Phase 1: Women were generally positive about the concept of an app to provide info and support and all of them see great potential in the app for helping women cope with issues that may arise when taking adjuvant endocrine therapy; they also highlighted the accessibility of the app Phase 2: Women reported that the user interface was clear with intuitive controls and user satisfaction was good from the usability tasks Phase 3: Pilot of the app—the participants reported that downloading and navigating the app was straightforward and that it was user friendly |
Phase 1 device (eg, phone) required; app needed to be easy to download and simple to navigate. |
Steeb et al (2019) [ |
38.5% (72/187) thought that such apps are useful for patients; 42.6% (78/183) voted that skin cancer apps can supplement or support professional skin cancer screening by a physician 59.1% of the patients (110/186) would download a skin cancer app recommended by their physician Men were generally more willing to download an app that has been recommended by their physician than women (P=.02) |
76.1% (140/184) figured that skin cancer apps cannot replace skin cancer screening performed by a physician Patients aged >61 years did not think that skin cancer apps can replace the physician in comparison to those under the age of 61 years (P=.02) and would rather read a printed brochure on skin cancer than download an app (P<.001) |
Rossen et al (2019) [ |
Training and support in utilizing health technology for rehabilitation |
The unreceptive group has a higher representation of vulnerable individuals that are older, with lower educational level, live alone, currently smoke, and with more chronic comorbidities Unreceptive-group experience technology-specific barriers with significantly lower scores in dimensions related to their skills, motivation and user experiences |
Rodler et al (2020) [ |
High response rates indicative of rapid acceptance of telehealth services by patients during pandemic despite difficulties of applicability in an aging population with lower email access or with hearing impairment; virtual communication was established quickly directly or through aiding relatives or partners |
Patients value personal interactions with their treating physicians greatly; patient–physician distancing can be perceived as a bigger toll than the risk of COVID-19 |
aN/A: not applicable.
Five studies [
Facilitators and barriers within the context of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model.
|
Facilitators | Barriers |
Performance expectancy |
Increased accessibility Decreased cost Improved privacy |
Preference for conventional care Confidentiality concerns |
Effort expectancy |
Convenience Usability |
Technical difficulties |
Social influence |
Physician recommendation |
Negative perceptions of telemedicine |
Facilitating conditions |
Having appropriate technical know-how and support |
None found |
Six articles [
In 2 early studies [
Participant acceptance of technology in monitoring and follow-up of their oncological condition was explored in 7 studies [
Acceptance of telemedicine related to psychosocial support and nursing care was studied in 5 studies [
In both articles using technology as an adjunct for prompting adherence to treatment, participants were found to be generally receptive [
Three studies [
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to explore the acceptance of telemedicine among older adults patients with cancer. Our review of 19 primary studies indicated that numerous facilitators and barriers to acceptance of telemedicine exist. Because no study employed a theoretical behavioral framework in their methodology, it was not possible to map facilitators and barriers to UTAUT constructs with great precision. It was possible, however, to classify factors broadly according to the original definition [
Although facilitators and barriers to telemedicine acceptance in the older adult population were reported in most studies, there was a lack of studies employing methods beyond descriptive methods. None of the studies explored the effectiveness of tailored interventions to address facilitators and barriers to the acceptance of telemedicine by older adult populations; facilitators and barriers would likely differ across different cultural contexts and by type of telemedicine studied—this is a gap in our current knowledge of the use of telemedicine. Studies should aim to illustrate potential facilitators and barriers to telemedicine adoption while exploring the efficacy of different policies to address these factors within local settings. For example, common barriers identified in this review, such as negative perceptions of telemedicine, technical difficulties, and confidentiality concerns, can be easily targeted in education campaigns. The effectiveness of such campaigns can be evaluated and adapted to different local contexts. Policymakers may consider using the UTAUT model as a theoretical basis in designing such interventions.
While most studies showed positive acceptance of telemedicine as an adjunct to traditional care models, there was a paucity of articles that could confidently declare that the telemedicine alternative offered could completely replace the traditional modality. Older adult patients appear to still cherish the opportunity for face-to-face consults, and some studies [
Five studies [
The findings of our review may have implications for health care and public health policymakers in the context of telemedicine implementation. Caring for an older adult with cancer is complex. Health care innovation requires corresponding changes in behavioral patterns among the older adult population to realize its full potential. While some traditional barriers to health care access may be overcome, the acceptance of telemedicine itself is a behavior change, challenging the accepted health care delivery norm. In the adoption of telemedicine to aid in health care, the older adult population faces a whole new distinct set of facilitators and barriers, and an understanding of these is important to increase telemedicine acceptance [
With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which appears to be accelerating the worldwide adoption of telemedicine, it is inevitable that many patients will face the prospect of having to integrate telemedicine into their care routines—within the 6-month period from January to June 2020, there were 543 articles published on telemedicine-related literature [
We acknowledge several limitations in our review. First, while we took the definition of older adults to be 65 years and older, it was not practical to identify only articles that contain a sample population of this age range. Doing so would have severely limited the number of articles available for analysis and would have excluded numerous studies in which the majority of the sample population were 65 years or older. We would have missed out on potentially available evidence in the literature pertaining to older adult patients and telemedicine. We, therefore, also included any studies in which a subgroup analysis on participants 65 years and older was performed. This compromise meant that a proportion (albeit, less than half) of the sampled population among included articles was younger than 65 years of age.
Second, the definition of telemedicine is very wide, and a range of telemedicine interventions had to be considered. This contributed to the heterogeneity of the studies included in this review.
Third, all the studies were conducted in Western high-income nations. This limits the generalizability of our findings. Attitudes of older adults with cancer toward telemedicine may be influenced by cultural factors and education level. The mean education levels of low- or middle-income nations could also be different from those of the sample populations included in this review; thus, the adoption of telemedicine in low- or middle-income nations by older adults with cancer might encounter additional difficulties.
Fourth, telemedicine is a rapidly emerging field, and its emergence has been expedited by the COVID-19 pandemic. While we were able to include articles from database inception to September 2020, it is likely that more studies have been published since September 2020.
The findings of our scoping review have important implications for future research. In a world grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine offers an alternative model of care and is here to stay. Our review has identified research gaps to be addressed. Future studies are necessary to understand the facilitators and barriers to telemedicine acceptance in older adults with cancer, with a view to investigating interventions to address barriers.
Supplementary tables.
population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
None declared.