Digital Health Portals for Individuals Living With or Beyond Cancer: Patient-Driven Scoping Review.

Introduction

Background

Patient portals are digital platforms designed to improve health outcomes and the quality of care by facilitating health data access and communication between individuals and their health care providers [ 1 - 5 ]. These portals offer remote access to provider-owned personal medical records from any location with internet connectivity [ 1 , 3 - 7 ]. By enabling timely communication with care teams and supporting informed decision-making, portals have the potential to enhance disease-related knowledge and patient engagement, while also contributing to the optimization of health care processes [ 1 - 5 , 7 - 11 ]. Their growing use reflects a shift toward empowering individuals and supporting more active and collaborative approaches to health management [ 12 - 16 ].

For conceptual precision, the terminology used in this study aligns with definitions commonly found in the peer-reviewed literature. Although similar in function, personal health records (PHRs) and patient portals differ in several ways [ 9 , 10 , 17 ]. PHRs are personally owned and controlled tools that allow individuals to enter, manage, and integrate health data from multiple sources. In contrast, patient portals are institutionally managed and contain information from one or more health care providers [ 9 , 10 , 17 ]. While PHRs generally provide greater user autonomy and integration of personal health information, patient portals are typically tethered to health care providers systems to facilitate interoperability [ 9 , 10 , 17 ].

Distinguishing electronic health records (EHRs) from electronic medical records (EMRs) is also relevant. EHRs are comprehensive, provider-maintained digital records intended for use across health care systems to support coordinated care and clinical decision-making [ 17 ]. Patient portals, in contrast, offer individuals limited access to selected health information contained within these systems, such as laboratory or tests results [ 7 , 17 ]. Although similar, EHRs differ from EMRs in scope [ 12 ]. EMRs function as digital equivalents of paper charts, typically limited to a single practice, whereas EHRs integrate information across multiple providers and support greater interoperability [ 7 , 11 , 17 ].

Patient portals, tethered to EHRs or EMRs, are secure online platforms enabling individuals to access their personal administrative and clinical information at any time and from any location [ 1 , 2 ]. This access to personal health information constitutes the core functionality of digital health portals, regardless of whether they are referred to as patient portals or PHRs [ 1 , 2 , 8 ]. More recent generations of portals can also include interoperable features that facilitate communication and care coordination with health care providers, such as secure messaging, appointment scheduling, and medications renewal capabilities [ 1 , 2 ].

Cancer care presents both challenges and opportunities for the implementation and meaningful use of these capabilities [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 ]. The complexity of oncology care, involving multidisciplinary teams, intensive treatments, and frequent clinical interactions, highlights the need for effective information management and communication systems. Patient portal can improve communication in complex context by promoting informational continuity, enhancing care coordination, and supporting engagement among individuals living with or beyond cancer [ 1 - 8 ]. In addition to (1) accessing their personal health information, these benefits are supported by enabling individuals to (2) communicate with providers through secure messaging and (3) access health services [ 1 , 2 , 4 - 7 ].

Improvements in health outcomes, including enhanced disease-related knowledge and self-efficacy, were associated with portal use for the chronic disease management contexts [ 1 , 5 , 7 ]. For instance, in diabetes management, portal use has been associated with improved clinical outcomes such as better glycemic control [ 1 ]. Evidence regarding clinical benefits in oncology, however, remains inconclusive. Studies focusing on breast cancer populations have demonstrated no consistent relationship between portal use and improvements in symptom management [ 8 ]. In addition, portals may contribute to improved health system efficiency by decreasing wait times and reducing missed appointments [ 2 ]. Research on their impact on health care use within diabetes management remains limited [ 1 ].

Patient portals and PHRs are associated with a range of potential benefits, spanning behavioral changes and system-level efficiencies [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 7 , 12 - 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 ]. A comprehensive assessment of the impact of digital health technologies requires consideration of multiple outcome domains [ 20 , 21 ]. These include behavioral and technology-related outcomes (eg, self-management, health behaviors, usability, and perceived usefulness); psychosocial outcomes (eg, emotional well-being and quality of life); clinical outcomes (eg, symptom burden, fatigue, and nutritional status); and system-level outcomes (eg, care coordination, cost-effectiveness, and hospital readmissions) [ 20 ]. However, substantially gaps remain in evaluating patient portals across multiple dimensions, along with limited understanding of the full range of outcomes associated with their use [ 21 ].

The use and impact of portals across diverse population groups remain insufficiently explored [ 22 ]. The PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence; race, ethnicity, culture, language, or occupation; gender or sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; and social capital–Plus) framework offers a comprehensive lens for examining these disparities by highlighting social determinants of health [ 23 ]. For example, individuals in rural areas may face limited internet access, while patients from racial or ethnic minority groups may have lower rates of portal adoption. Socioeconomic constraints, lower educational attainment, and reduced social support have also been associated with possible decreased portal use [ 3 - 6 , 22 , 24 , 25 ]. Integrating the PROGRESS-Plus framework into evaluations of portal use in oncology may support the identification of inequities and inform the development of more inclusive digital health strategies.

Objectives

This scoping review aimed to identify the digital health portal functionalities reported in studies involving individuals living with or beyond cancer, as well as the categories of health outcomes assessed, including those related to the health care system. A secondary objective was to explore the diversity of participant characteristics and potential factors associated with portal use.

Methods

Overview

Aligned with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research and Patient Engagement Framework [ 26 ], this study actively engaged “patient partners” (SO and CC), who are also coauthors, throughout all phases of the project. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research defines “patient partners” as individuals with lived experience of a health condition who engage meaningfully in the research process as members of the study team. In this review, SO and CC contributed to shaping the research objectives, codeveloping the work plan and study protocol with the full author team, and participating in the interpretation of findings.

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI (formerly the Joanna Briggs Institute) guidelines [ 27 ], and the protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework Registries [ 28 ]. The results are reported following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist [ 29 ]. The PCC (population [or participant], concept, and context) framework [ 30 , 31 ] was used to define the elements applied in this review ( Table 1 ).

Search Strategy

The initial development of the search strategy was informed by 2 previously published systematic reviews: one examining patient portals functionalities and health outcomes in individuals with diabetes [ 1 ] and the other focusing on eHealth technologies for supportive care in breast cancer [ 8 ]. A preliminary search was first developed by the first author (SO) and the corresponding author (MS), drawing on the approaches used in these reviews. This strategy was subsequently refined in collaboration with an experienced librarian (MCL), who provided guidance on the final search terms and structure.

The search was conducted across 4 databases: Embase; Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, AHCI, and ESCI); MEDLINE (Ovid); and CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost) to identify sources published between January 1, 2014, and February 27, 2024. Overall, 10 relevant sources, identified through hand-searching by the first author (SO), were used to assess the sensitivity of the database-specific search strategies provided in Multimedia Appendix 1 . References were imported into the web-based collaborative tool Covidence [ 32 ] by the librarian (MCL), where duplicates were removed using both manual verification and the platform’s automated deduplication function.

The search start date was restricted to 2014 to ensure the relevance of the findings to contemporary technological capabilities. The past decade has seen rapid advancements in digital health, particularly in the adoption of patient portals and the availability of enhanced features [ 14 , 18 , 19 ]. Reflecting the fast-paced evolution of eHealth research, one review limited its search to studies published from 2016 onward [ 8 ]. In the United States, more recent generations of portals began gaining traction around 2012, with broader adoption and increasing research interest by 2015 [ 18 ]. In addition to providing access to laboratory and tests results, these portals increasingly incorporated functionalities such as secure messaging, prescription renewals, and appointment scheduling, contributing to more patient-centered and interoperable systems [ 14 , 19 ].

Data Collection

As shown in Table 1 , the inclusion criteria were (1) participants living with or beyond cancer, (2) access to personal health information through a digital portal, and (3) at least one outcome related to health or the health care system. Studies conducted in hospital settings were excluded, as patients with cancer in these environments are typically managed by clinical teams overseeing all aspects of care and support. In addition, studies involving mixed populations of cancer and noncancer participants were excluded if subgroup-specific results for individuals living with or beyond cancer were not reported.

To ensure consistency in the application of the eligibility criteria, a calibration exercise was conducted before the screening phase. A sample of 20 records was independently reviewed by 5 team members (SO, WS, CC, FN, and MS), including one experienced reviewer (MS). During this process, it was observed that some titles and abstracts referred to access to EHRs or PHRs rather than explicitly using the term “patient portal.” Regardless of terminology, inclusion or exclusion decisions were based strictly on alignment with the predefined selection criteria.

Following calibration, the same 5 reviewers screened all titles and abstracts in duplicate using the established criteria. Discrepancies regarding inclusion at this stage were resolved through group consensus. Before full-text screening, a second calibration exercise was performed using a sample of 10 articles to further ensure consistency. Full-text review was also conducted in duplicate by the same team, with any disagreements regarding study inclusion resolved through consensus among all reviewers.

Data Extraction

In accordance with JBI guidance [ 33 ], a structured data extraction grid was developed and pretested during a team meeting involving all reviewers. Four reviewers (WS, CC, SO, and FN) independently extracted data from the included studies, and the results were subsequently verified by the first author (SO) and an experienced reviewer (MS) to ensure accuracy and completeness. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet was used to manage the data extraction process. Extracted information included general study characteristics (such as article reference, first author, year of publication, country, study method, data source, and participant characteristics) and portal-related details (including portal name, type of accessible health information, availability of secure messaging, and access to health services provided), and reported outcomes.

Data Synthesis

All included studies involved portal use, defined as participants having access to their personal health information through a digital platform [ 1 , 2 , 4 - 7 ]. This include both patient portals and PHRs [ 9 ]. Data synthesis was structured using 3 conceptual frameworks. First, portal features were classified into three categories: (1) type of accessible health information, (2) availability of secure messaging, and (3) access to health services through the portal [ 1 , 2 , 7 ].

Second, study outcomes were grouped into four domains: (1) behavioral and technology-related experiences, (2) psychosocial outcomes, (3) clinical outcomes, and (4) health care system–related outcomes [ 20 , 28 ].

Third, the PROGRESS-Plus framework was applied to identify dimensions of social stratification that may influence portal use and related outcomes [ 23 ]. This framework includes the following factors: place of residence, race or ethnicity, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital. The “Plus” component captures additional sources of potential disadvantage, such as age, disability, and other vulnerabilities relevant to health equity.

Results

Overview

Out of 1996 titles and abstracts, along with 142 full-text articles that underwent dual screening, 44 studies reported across 45 articles (1 study was reported in 2 separate articles) met the eligibility criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 flow diagram is shown in Figure 1 [ 34 ].

Characteristics of Included Studies

The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 2 .

The 45 included articles (reporting on 44 studies) were published between 2014 and 2024, with an increase beginning in 2018 (4/45, 9%) compared to 2017 (2/45, 4%) [ 35 - 79 ]. The highest number of publications was observed in 2019 (9/45, 20%) and 2020 (9/45, 20%), followed by a decline in 2021 (6/45, 13%) and 2022 (6/45, 13%). This distribution is presented in Multimedia Appendix 2 .

Of the 44 included studies, most were conducted in the United States (30/44, 68%), followed by the Netherlands (5/44, 11%) and Sweden (2/44, 5%). Seven other countries were each represented by a single study. Most studies used a quantitative design (23/44, 52%), followed by mixed methods (11/44, 25%) and qualitative approaches (10/44, 23%).

The number of participants with cancer ranged from 6 to 6495, or 9900 (reduced to 6446 after propensity score matching) in one study. Informal or family caregivers were included in 18% (8/44) of the studies, while individuals beyond active cancer treatment, described as cancer survivors, were included in 5% (2/44) of the studies.

Cancer Types and Stages

The cancer types and stages of participants in all included studies are presented in Multimedia Appendix 3 . Among the 44 included studies, breast cancer was the most frequently reported cancer type (16/44, 36%), followed by hematologic cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma (12/44, 27%). Gastrointestinal cancers, such as colorectal and stomach cancers, were reported in 18% (8/44) of the studies. Lung cancer was reported in 18% (8/44) of the studies, and prostate cancer was reported in 16% (7/44) of the studies. Sarcomas were reported in 11% (5/44) of the studies, brain tumors in 5% (2/44) of the studies, and kidney cancer in 5% (2/44) of the studies. Metastatic disease was identified among participants in 25% (11/44) of the studies, often involving advanced stages, including stage IV.

Portal Functionalities Reported and Outcomes Assessed

All 44 included studies involved participants who had access to their personal information or data through a digital portal. However, access to secure messaging features or other health services was not a required for inclusion. To address the primary objective of this review, which was to identify the functionalities of portals used by individuals with cancer and the outcomes assessed, their characteristics of are presented in Table 3 .

Accessible Health Information

Regarding the access to personal health information via digital portals, the most commonly available feature was access to test and laboratory results (28/44, 64%), followed by physician notes (18/44, 41%), medication lists (15/44, 34%), and medical history, such as vaccination records (4/44, 9%).

Availability of Secure Messaging

Regarding the availability of secure messaging, 68% (30/44) of the studies reported that this functionality was available. In 30% (13/44) of the studies, secure messaging was not mentioned, not related to the study objectives, or not applicable. One study explicitly reported that secure messaging was not available.

Access to Health Services Provided

Regarding access to health services provided through digital portals, appointment-related functionalities such as scheduling, booking, or self-scheduling were the most frequently reported (19/44, 43%). Educational resources, general health information, or access to self-management libraries were available in 30% (13/44) of the studies, followed by medication refills, renewals, or other prescription-related features (11/44, 25%). Symptom tracking was reported in 16% (7/44) studies, caregiver access or support features in 11% (5/44) of the studies, patient-reported outcome collection in 7% (3/44) of the studies, and health status monitoring in 5% (2/44) of the studies. Access to health services was either not mentioned or not directly relevant to the study objective in 20% (9/44) of the studies.

Assessed Outcomes

The assessed outcomes were grouped into 4 categories. Behavioral and technology experience outcomes were the most frequently reported across studies (37/44, 84%), followed by health care system-level outcomes (19/44, 43%), psychosocial outcomes (16/44, 36%), and clinical outcomes (5/44, 11%). The complete list of outcomes is presented in Textbox 1 (total number of studies reflects those that assessed at least one outcome within a given category; studies that assessed multiple outcomes within the same category are counted only once per category).

Assessed outcomes grouped into 4 categories.

Behavioral and technology experience (total studies represented, n=37)

Portal adoption and usage behaviors (n=9)

Self-management practices and health behaviors changes (n=7)

User engagement (n=7)

Perceived system usability and user-perceived benefits (n=6)

Preferences for portal features and actual use patterns (n=5)

Messaging frequency and email communication behavior (n=4)

Health engagement and physical activity (n=4)

Cancer-related portal use behaviors and content preferences (n=3)

Access to mobile and app technologies for portal use (n=3)

Caregiver and family member engagement, involvement, and experiences with portal use (n=3)

Psychosocial (total studies represented, n=16)

Emotional responses and psychological readiness to engage with the portal (n=9)

Patient satisfaction and subjective perceptions of portal use (n=5)

Concerns about data security, privacy, and trust (n=4)

Perceived psychosocial impact and quality of life (n=4)

Patient understanding and health-related beliefs (n=3)

Relational experiences and perceived social support (n=3)

Clinical (total studies represented, n=5)

Symptom burden and control (n=4)

Survival rates (n=1)

Health system–level (total studies represented, n=19)

Demographic disparities and trends (n=10)

Provider perspectives and engagement (n=4)

Utilization of care (n=3)

Access and implementation barriers (n=3)

Enrollment and activation support (n=3)

Associations Between PROGRESS-Plus Factors and Portal Use

The second objective was to explore the diversity of participant characteristics and potential factors associated with portal use. The PROGRESS-Plus factors [ 23 ], as interpreted by the authors of the included studies, were identified in 43% (19/44) of the studies. These factors are summarized in Table 4 .

Among the PROGRESS-Plus factors, age was the most frequently reported dimension, addressed in 68% (13/19) of the included studies. This was followed by socioeconomic status (10/19, 53%), and both race or ethnicity and gender or sex, each included in 37% (7/19) of the studies. In contrast, social capital was reported in only 11% (2/19) of the studies, while occupation and disability were each addressed in 5% (1/19) of the studies. Religion was not represented in any of the included studies.

In addition to the PROGRESS-Plus factors, we identified 5 individual, cancer-related characteristics associated with the portal use ( Textbox 2 [ 42 , 45 , 60 , 69 , 78 ]).

Individual, cancer-related characteristics associated with portal use.

Individuals with bone cancer and those in the active treatment phase were more likely to use the portal [ 42 ].

Each additional oncology office visit in a month increased the frequency of portal log-ins [ 45 ].

Individuals with metastatic cancer were more frequent users compared to those with nonmetastatic cancer [ 60 ].

Caregivers of children undergoing longer treatments, and more radiology tests were more likely to activate the portal [ 69 ].

Those who transitioned from pediatric to adult care used the portal more consistently and frequently [ 78 ].

Discussion

Principal Findings

Most of the included studies were conducted in the United States, reflecting the widespread implementation of patient portals with interoperable features in that country during the early 2010s [ 49 , 65 ]. Common portal functionalities, such as those offered by “MyChart,” developed by “Epic Systems,” include access to laboratory and test results, secure messaging with clinical teams, appointment scheduling, and prescription refill requests. These features appear to have shaped the focus of the studies included in this review.

The outcomes assessed aligned with the available portal functionalities. Behavioral and technology experience outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, and health system–related outcomes were assessed more frequently than clinical outcomes. Symptom tracking, patient-reported outcome collection, and health status monitoring were less commonly described. None of the studies reported features that allowed patients to add or amend notes in their medical records. The use of virtual or remote consultations was explicitly specified in only 2 studies [ 41 , 43 ].

Only 4 studies in our review focused on symptom-related clinical outcomes [ 37 , 41 , 46 , 62 ]. While confounding factors limit causal inference, these studies highlight portal features that may facilitate symptom management. Identified functionalities included access to educational resources [ 37 ], electronic symptom tracking [ 41 ], symptom and distress monitoring [ 46 ], and personalized care planning with scheduled follow-up messaging by oncology nurses [ 62 ]. Structured follow-up, individualized education, and active monitoring appear particularly promising. These features warrant greater integration into portals and further investigation to better understand their potential impact on symptom burden and overall clinical outcomes.

Regarding the diversity of participant characteristics and potential factors associated with portal use, the evidence was heterogeneous. Age was frequently examined, but the findings were inconsistent. Some studies reported greater portal use among younger individuals [ 42 , 51 , 56 , 60 ], while others observed higher use among older adults [ 35 , 45 ]. Gender-related findings were similarly mixed: in some cases, women were more likely to use portals [ 35 , 44 , 45 , 51 ], while in others, men were [ 42 , 60 ]. All studies assessed gender in binary terms, comparing men and women only; none of the studies included gender-diverse identities.

Other PROGRESS-Plus factors demonstrated more consistent associations. In studies conducted in the United States, White and Asian participants were generally more likely to use portals than Black or Hispanic participants [ 39 , 44 , 45 , 51 , 56 , 60 , 78 ]. Similarly, individuals with higher socioeconomic status [ 35 , 39 , 50 , 60 , 64 , 69 , 73 ] and those residing in urban areas [ 37 , 50 , 51 , 60 , 69 ] were generally more likely to engage with portals than those living in rural settings. In contrast, factors such as social capital, occupation, disability, and religion were rarely explored. Additional vulnerability-related characteristics were also identified, including language spoken [ 39 , 69 ], access to computers [ 61 , 64 ], health literacy [ 35 ], and digital proficiency [ 42 , 64 ]. These factors may influence equitable access to and use of patient portals.

Comparison With Previous Work

We identified 3 reviews that examined patient portals among populations with various health conditions [ 1 , 5 , 7 ]. In addition, 3 reviews explored digital health interventions for individuals living with or beyond cancer, although they did not focus specifically on patient portal use [ 3 , 8 , 22 ]. Our review adds to this body of work by focusing exclusively on individuals with or beyond cancer and their use of portals, defined as an access to personal health information or data [ 1 , 2 , 4 - 7 ].

One previous review, published in 2018, specifically addressed portal use among individuals with cancer [ 4 ]. It concluded that portals may support self-management, a behavioral outcome, particularly among individuals beyond cancer. Consistent with our findings, portal use was more common among White individuals and those with higher socioeconomic status. While that review called for further research on factors influencing portal use, our work provides an updated synthesis that incorporates the PROGRESS-Plus factors framework and captures a broader range of outcomes.

Another review of portal functionalities for individuals with diabetes reported that half of the included studies (6 out of 12) featured secure messaging, and a smaller portion (2 out of 12) provided access to health services [ 1 ]. These proportions were lower than what we observed in our review. In contrast to our findings, which included few clinical outcome assessments, that review identified associations between portal use and improved glycemic control. Similarly, another review examining portal use across diverse populations found that while behavioral outcomes were generally positive, the effects on clinical outcomes remained inconsistent, likely due to confounding factors [ 5 ].

One review focusing on patient education delivered through portals reported increased user engagement, improved behavioral outcomes, and high levels of satisfaction [ 7 ]. These results align with our findings, which indicate a stronger focus on behavioral and technology experience outcomes. In a breast cancer population, a review of eHealth tools, including portals, found mixed effects on symptoms and lifestyle-related outcomes, although user satisfaction was generally high [ 8 ]. Another review of digital health technologies also reported improvements in behavioral outcomes and technology-related experiences, particularly in the context of clinician-patient communication [ 3 ].

In relation to PROGRESS-Plus factors, a review on patient-centered technologies for underserved cancer populations in the United States, including African American, Hispanic, and rural communities, reported improved behavioral outcomes, such as better screening adherence and increased cancer-related knowledge [ 22 ]. These populations remain underrepresented in digital health research, reinforcing the relevance of our equity-focused analysis.

Prior reviews also identified several barriers to effective portal use. This included difficulty navigating complex interfaces and limited support for certain populations, particularly those with lower digital literacy [ 22 ]. In addition, a review on oncology portal use noted that while many patients accessed their health records, they often struggled to interpret the information they found [ 4 ].

Together, these findings are consistent with our review and support the need for more inclusive, user-centered portal design. Tailored implementation strategies that address the needs of diverse populations are important to ensuring equitable access and meaningful engagement, particularly when considering the PROGRESS-Plus factors identified in our review.

Strengths and Limitations

This review has several strengths. First, 44 studies exploring the use of digital health portals among individuals living with or beyond cancer were identified. Our inclusion criteria extended beyond portals solely tethered to medical records, encompassing all digital platforms that enabled these individuals to access their personal health information or data. Second, we identified and categorized portal functionalities into 3 distinct categories, and we grouped outcomes into 4 categories. Third, we applied the PROGRESS-Plus framework to identify potentially underserved populations and to highlight actionable opportunities for promoting health equity.

Nonetheless, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, we limited our search to studies published in the 10 years preceding March 2024. This time frame was selected to reflect current technological capabilities and patient engagement practices, with an emphasis on more advanced and interoperable portal systems. Given the pace of technological change during this period, it is unlikely that major relevant studies were overlooked. Second, our search strategy was not peer-reviewed by an independent librarian. However, detailed documentation is provided in Multimedia Appendix 1 to support transparency and replicability. Third, data extraction was conducted once by 4 novice reviewers. To ensure accuracy and consistency, all extracted data were subsequently validated by the first author (SO) and an experienced reviewer (MS) with expertise in methodology and digital health technologies.

Conclusions

This review provides an overview of digital health portal use among individuals living with or beyond cancer, encompassing both patient portals and PHRs. While these tools are increasingly implemented to support patient self-management, their actual impact on clinical outcomes remains uncertain. Our findings indicate that research has predominantly focused on portals implemented in the United States and has emphasized behavioral and technology experience outcomes, with comparatively limited attention to clinical outcomes and equity considerations.

Disparities were observed in the availability of portal functionalities, the types of outcomes assessed, and the extent to which PROGRESS-Plus factors were reported or analyzed. Features such as secure messaging and access to services such as appointment scheduling and medication renewals were the most described. In contrast, functionalities such as personalized care programs and symptom tracking tools were less frequently represented. Furthermore, portal use was lower among certain population groups, and several PROGRESS-Plus factors remained underexplored or absent from analysis.

These findings offer valuable insights for researchers, health care providers, policy makers, patient advocacy groups, and digital health engineering teams engaged in the design and implementation of patient-centered technologies. To ensure that digital health portals contribute meaningfully to cancer care for all individuals, future research should prioritize more inclusive designs and evaluation strategies that address both outcome diversity and social determinants of health.

This project is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance. Generative artificial intelligence tools were used exclusively to assist with language editing and structural refinement. All scientific content, data analysis, and interpretation were solely developed by the authors, who take full responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the manuscript’s content.

Authors' Contributions: SO, a person living with chronic brain cancer, proposed the research question to the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance to obtain the funding for this study. SO, MS, SD, MPG, and AL designed the study, while MS and SO co-developed the search strategy with MCL (librarian). SO wrote the first draft of this manuscript. SO, WS, CC, FN, and MS participated in the screening and data extraction processes. CC, a person living with a chronic disease, is the second “patient partner” and coauthor in this project. All authors have reviewed and approved the final draft of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Search strategies by database.

Number of articles published per year (2014 to 2024).

Participant cancer types and stages.

PRISMA-ScR checklist.

Abbreviations

electronic health record

electronic medical record

population (or participant), concept, and context

personal health record

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews

place of residence; race, ethnicity, culture, or language; occupation; gender or sex; religion; education; socioeconomic status; and social capital–Plus

Data Availability

The database search strategies are available in Multimedia Appendix 1 . A table of participant cancer types and stages is provided in Multimedia Appendix 3 . The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist can be found in Multimedia Appendix 4 . All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

1 Alturkistani A Qavi A Anyanwu PE Greenfield G Greaves F Costelloe C Patient portal functionalities and patient outcomes among patients with diabetes: systematic review J Med Internet Res 2020 09 22 22 9 e18976 10.2196/18976 32960182 v22i9e18976 32960182 PMC7539164

2 Alturkistani A Greenfield G Greaves F Aliabadi S Jenkins RH Costelloe C Patient portal functionalities and uptake: systematic review protocol JMIR Res Protoc 2020 07 31 9 7 e14975 10.2196/14975 32734928 v9i7e14975 32734928 PMC7428936

3 ElKefi S Asan O How technology impacts communication between cancer patients and their health care providers: a systematic literature review Int J Med Inform 2021 05 149 104430 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104430 33684711 S1386-5056(21)00056-3 33684711 PMC8131252

4 Coughlin SS Caplan L Young L A review of web portal use by oncology patients J Cancer Treatment Diagn 2018 11 1 2 6 1 6 10.29245/2578-2967/2018/6.1154 30680374 30680374 PMC6342494

5 Han HR Gleason KT Sun CA Miller HN Kang SJ Chow S Anderson R Nagy P Bauer T Using patient portals to improve patient outcomes: systematic review JMIR Hum Factors 2019 12 19 6 4 e15038 10.2196/15038 31855187 v6i4e15038 31855187 PMC6940868

6 Sinha S Garriga M Naik N McSteen BW Odisho AY Lin A Hong JC Disparities in electronic health record patient portal enrollment among oncology patients JAMA Oncol 2021 06 01 7 6 935 7 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0540 33830178 2778094 33830178 PMC8033503

7 Johnson AM Brimhall AS Johnson ET Hodgson J Didericksen K Pye J Harmon GJ Sewell KB A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient education through patient portals JAMIA Open 2023 04 6 1 ooac085 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac085 36686972 ooac085 36686972 PMC9847535

8 Gyawali B Bowman M Sharpe I Jalink M Srivastava S Wijeratne DT A systematic review of eHealth technologies for breast cancer supportive care Cancer Treat Rev 2023 03 114 102519 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102519 36736125 S0305-7372(23)00010-5 36736125

9 Noronha PK Personal health records and patient portals: an umbrella review University of Victoria 2025-05-29 http://hdl.handle.net/1828/10712

10 Nazi KM The future of personal health records and patient portals Med Res Arch 2021 9 12 2641 10.18103/mra.v9i12.2641

11 Volkman J Clements M Ho EY Bylund CL van Weert JC Basnyat I Bol N Dean M Medical records, electronic/patient portals The International Encyclopedia of Health Communication 2024 Hoboken, NJ Wiley 1 8

12 Ammenwerth E Schnell-Inderst P Hoerbst A Patient empowerment by electronic health records: first results of a systematic review on the benefit of patient portals Stud Health Technol Inform 2011 165 63 7 21685587 21685587

13 Irizarry T DeVito Dabbs A Curran CR Patient portals and patient engagement: a state of the science review J Med Internet Res 2015 06 23 17 6 e148 10.2196/jmir.4255 26104044 v17i6e148 26104044 PMC4526960

14 Kruse CS Argueta DA Lopez L Nair A Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review J Med Internet Res 2015 02 20 17 2 e40 10.2196/jmir.3703 25707035 v17i2e40 25707035 PMC4376181

15 Risling T Martinez J Young J Thorp-Froslie N Evaluating patient empowerment in association with eHealth technology: scoping review J Med Internet Res 2017 09 29 19 9 e329 10.2196/jmir.7809 28963090 v19i9e329 28963090 PMC5640823

16 Stewart MT Hogan TP Nicklas J Robinson SA Purington CM Miller CJ Vimalananda VG Connolly SL Wolfe HL Nazi KM Netherton D Shimada SL The promise of patient portals for individuals living with chronic illness: qualitative study identifying pathways of patient engagement J Med Internet Res 2020 07 17 22 7 e17744 10.2196/17744 32706679 v22i7e17744 32706679 PMC7395248

17 Tengilimoğlu D Orhan F Şenel Tekin P Younis M Analysis of publications on health information management using the science mapping method: a holistic perspective Healthcare (Basel) 2024 01 23 12 3 287 10.3390/healthcare12030287 38338175 healthcare12030287 38338175 PMC10855699

18 Sieck CJ Hefner JL Schnierle J Florian H Agarwal A Rundell K McAlearney AS The rules of engagement: perspectives on secure messaging from experienced ambulatory patient portal users JMIR Med Inform 2017 07 04 5 3 e13 10.2196/medinform.7516 28676467 v5i3e13 28676467 PMC5516097

19 Dendere R Slade C Burton-Jones A Sullivan C Staib A Janda M Patient portals facilitating engagement with inpatient electronic medical records: a systematic review J Med Internet Res 2019 04 11 21 4 e12779 10.2196/12779 30973347 v21i4e12779 30973347 PMC6482406

20 Gagnon MP Ouellet S Attisso E Supper W Amil S Rhéaume C Paquette J Chabot C Laferrière MC Sasseville M Wearable devices for supporting chronic disease self-management: scoping review Interact J Med Res 2024 12 09 13 e55925 10.2196/55925 39652850 v13i1e55925 39652850 PMC11667132

21 Avdagovska M Menon D Stafinski T Capturing the impact of patient portals based on the quadruple aim and benefits evaluation frameworks: scoping review J Med Internet Res 2020 12 08 22 12 e24568 10.2196/24568 33289677 v22i12e24568 33289677 PMC7755541

22 Tarver WL Haggstrom DA The use of cancer-specific patient-centered technologies among underserved populations in the United States: systematic review J Med Internet Res 2019 04 23 21 4 e10256 10.2196/10256 31012855 v21i4e10256 31012855 PMC6658273

23 Cochrane methods PROGRESS-Plus 2024-03-20 https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/projects/evidence-equity/progress-plus

24 Girault A Ferrua M Lalloué B Sicotte C Fourcade A Yatim F Hébert G Di Palma M Minvielle E Internet-based technologies to improve cancer care coordination: current use and attitudes among cancer patients Eur J Cancer 2015 03 51 4 551 7 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.001 25661828 S0959-8049(14)01158-7 25661828

25 Armstrong M Benda NC Seier K Rogers C Ancker JS Stetson PD Peng Y Diamond LC Improving cancer care communication: identifying sociodemographic differences in patient portal secure messages not authored by the patient Appl Clin Inform 2023 03 19 14 2 296 9 10.1055/a-2015-8679 36657471 36657471 PMC10115514

26 Strategy for patient-oriented research - patient engagement framework Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2024-03-20 https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html

27 Peters MD Marnie C Tricco AC Pollock D Munn Z Alexander L McInerney P Godfrey CM Khalil H Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews JBI Evid Synth 2020 10 18 10 2119 26 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 33038124 02174543-202010000-00004 33038124

28 Ouellet S Naye F Supper JM Patient portals for patient with cancer: a scoping review protocol Open Science Framework 2024 2025-05-29 https://osf.io/nrbt3/

29 Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W O'Brien KK Colquhoun H Levac D Moher D Peters MD Horsley T Weeks L Hempel S Akl EA Chang C McGowan J Stewart L Hartling L Aldcroft A Wilson MG Garritty C Lewin S Godfrey CM Macdonald MT Langlois EV Soares-Weiser K Moriarty J Clifford T Tunçalp Ö Straus SE PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation Ann Intern Med 2018 10 02 169 7 467 73 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033 2700389 30178033

30 Aromataris E Munn Z Aromataris E Lockwood C Porritt K Pilla B Jordan Z Scoping reviews JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis 2020 Adelaide, Australia Joanna Briggs Institute

31 Apply PCC University of South Australia 2024-03-20 https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/ScopingReviews/ApplyPCC

32 Covidence Veritas Health Innovation 2024-03-20 https://www.covidence.org/

33 Pollock D Peters MD Khalil H McInerney P Alexander L Tricco AC Evans C de Moraes É Godfrey CM Pieper D Saran A Stern C Munn Z Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews JBI Evid Synth 2023 03 01 21 3 520 32 10.11124/JBIES-22-00123 36081365 02174543-202303000-00007 36081365

34 PRISMA flow diagram PRISMA 2024-12-12 https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-flow-diagram

35 Alpert JM Morris BB Thomson MD Matin K Brown RF Identifying how patient portals impact communication in oncology Health Commun 2019 11 06 34 12 1395 403 10.1080/10410236.2018.1493418 29979886 29979886 PMC6320725

36 Baun C Vogsen M Nielsen MK Høilund-Carlsen PF Hildebrandt MG Perspective of patients with metastatic breast cancer on electronic access to scan results: mixed-methods study J Med Internet Res 2020 03 10 22 2 e15723 10.2196/15723 32039819 v22i2e15723 32039819 PMC7055828

37 Cahill JE Lin L LoBiondo-Wood G Armstrong TS Acquaye AA Vera-Bolanos E Gilbert MR Padhye NS Personal health records, symptoms, uncertainty, and mood in brain tumor patients Neurooncol Pract 2014 06 1 2 64 70 10.1093/nop/npu005 26034618 npu005 26034618 PMC4371167

38 Colussi G Descalzo J Paoloni A Obregón O Cassarino M Jaca P Oncology patient portal: understanding user's needs and expectations Stud Health Technol Inform 2024 01 25 310 484 8 10.3233/SHTI231012 38269850 SHTI231012 38269850

39 Conroy M Kamaraju S Powell M Harris A Beckius A Nagavally S Dawson A Min H Wright T Wainaina N Binder AF Racial and ethnic differences in the use of electronic medical record messaging among patients with breast cancer: a quality improvement study Clin Breast Cancer 2023 10 23 7 e434 40 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.07.001 37482498 S1526-8209(23)00172-6 37482498

40 Coquet J Blayney DW Brooks JD Hernandez-Boussard T Association between patient-initiated emails and overall 2-year survival in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: evidence from the real-world setting Cancer Med 2020 11 28 9 22 8552 61 10.1002/cam4.3483 32986931 32986931 PMC7666724

41 Daly B Kuperman G Zervoudakis A Baldwin Medsker A Roy A Ro AS Arenas J Yanamandala HV Kottamasu R Salvaggio R Holland J Hirsch S Walters CB Lauria T Chow K Begue A Rozenshteyn M Zablocki M Dhami AK Silva N Brown E Katzen LL Chiu YO Perry C Sokolowski S Wagner I Veach SR Grisham RN Dang CT Reidy-Lagunes DL Simon BA Perchick W InSight care pilot program: redefining seeing a patient JCO Oncol Pract 2020 10 16 10 e1050 9 10.1200/OP.20.00214 32468925 32468925 PMC7564136

42 De Regge M Decoene E Eeckloo K Van Hecke A Development and evaluation of an integrated digital patient platform during oncology treatment J Patient Exp 2020 03 7 1 53 61 10.1177/2374373518825142 32128372 10.1177_2374373518825142 32128372 PMC7036686

43 Ector GI Westerweel PE Hermens RP Braspenning KA Heeren BC Vinck OM de Jong JJ Janssen JJ Blijlevens NM The development of a web-based, patient-centered intervention for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CMyLife): design thinking development approach J Med Internet Res 2020 05 15 22 5 e15895 10.2196/15895 32412424 v22i5e15895 32412424 PMC7260663

44 Elkefi S Yu Z Asan O Online medical record nonuse among patients: data analysis study of the 2019 health information national trends survey J Med Internet Res 2021 03 22 23 2 e24767 10.2196/24767 33616539 v23i2e24767 33616539 PMC7939938

45 Emamekhoo H Chandereng T Sesto ME Luoh R Bergeson EM Barbosa Carroll C Tevaarwerk AJ Patterns of health portal use by regular portal users among patients with cancer: results from the UWCCC survivorship program JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2023 01 7 7 e2200119 10.1200/CCI.22.00119 36638325 36638325 PMC10166448

46 Fridriksdottir N Ingadottir B Skuladottir K Zoëga S Gunnarsdottir S Supportive digital health service during cancer chemotherapy: single-arm before-and-after feasibility study JMIR Form Res 2023 12 22 7 e50550 10.2196/50550 38015268 v7i1e50550 38015268 PMC10770793

47 Geerts P Eijsink J Moser A Ter Horst P Boersma C Postma M Rationale and development of an e-health application to deliver patient-centered care during treatment for recently diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: pilot study of the MM E-coach Pilot Feasibility Stud 2023 05 20 9 1 85 10.1186/s40814-023-01307-0 37210584 10.1186/s40814-023-01307-0 37210584 PMC10199287

48 Geerts PA van der Weijden T Loeffen PG Janssen LE Almekinders C Wienhold TA Bos GM Developing a patient portal for haematology patients requires involvement of all stakeholders and a customised design, tailored to the individual needs BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2019 07 11 19 1 129 10.1186/s12911-019-0868-y 31296210 10.1186/s12911-019-0868-y 31296210 PMC6625061

49 Gerber DE Laccetti AL Chen B Yan J Cai J Gates S Xie Y Lee SJ Predictors and intensity of online access to electronic medical records among patients with cancer J Oncol Pract 2014 09 10 5 e307 12 10.1200/JOP.2013.001347 25006222 JOP.2013.001347 25006222 PMC4161732

50 Greenberg-Worisek A Ferede L Balls-Berry J Marigi I Valentin Mendez E Bajwa N Ouk M Orellana M Enders F Differences in electronic personal health information tool use between rural and urban cancer patients in the United States: secondary data analysis JMIR Cancer 2020 08 10 6 2 e17352 10.2196/17352 32773369 v6i2e17352 32773369 PMC7445607

51 Griffin JM Kroner BL Wong SL Preiss L Wilder Smith A Cheville AL Mitchell SA Lancki N Hassett MJ Schrag D Osarogiagbon RU Ridgeway JL Cella D Jensen RE Flores AM Austin JD Yanez B Disparities in electronic health record portal access and use among patients with cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 2024 03 07 116 3 476 84 10.1093/jnci/djad225 37930884 7335843 37930884 PMC10919330

52 Groen WG Kuijpers W Oldenburg HS Wouters MW Aaronson NK van Harten WH Supporting lung cancer patients with an interactive patient portal: feasibility study JMIR Cancer 2017 08 08 3 2 e10 10.2196/cancer.7443 28790025 v3i2e10 28790025 PMC5566630

53 Haggstrom DA Carr T Uses of personal health records for communication among colorectal cancer survivors, caregivers, and providers: interview and observational study in a human-computer interaction laboratory JMIR Hum Factors 2022 01 25 9 1 e16447 10.2196/16447 35076406 v9i1e16447 35076406 PMC8826153

54 Kayastha N Pollak KI LeBlanc TW Open oncology notes: a qualitative study of oncology patients' experiences reading their cancer care notes J Oncol Pract 2018 04 14 4 e251 8 10.1200/JOP.2017.028605 29443650 29443650

55 Kuijpers W Groen WG Oldenburg HS Wouters MW Aaronson NK van Harten WH eHealth for breast cancer survivors: use, feasibility and impact of an interactive portal JMIR Cancer 2016 05 10 2 1 e3 10.2196/cancer.5456 28410178 v2i1e3 28410178 PMC5369634

56 Leader AE Capparella LM Waldman LB Cammy RB Petok AR Dean R Shimada A Yocavitch L Rising KL Garber GD Worster B Dicker AP Digital literacy at an urban cancer center: implications for technology use and vulnerable patients JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2021 08 5 5 872 80 10.1200/CCI.21.00039 34428075 34428075 PMC8807016

57 Liu PL Zhao X Ye JF The effects of the use of patient-accessible electronic health record portals on cancer survivors' health outcomes: cross-sectional survey study J Med Internet Res 2022 10 24 24 10 e39614 10.2196/39614 36279157 v24i10e39614 36279157 PMC9683530

58 Longacre ML Chwistek M Keleher C Siemon M Egleston BL Collins M Fang CY Patient-caregiver portal system in palliative oncology: assessment of usability and perceived benefit JMIR Hum Factors 2023 11 02 10 e47624 10.2196/47624 37917129 v10i1e47624 37917129 PMC10654898

59 Luo Y Li Q Cheatham L Associated factors with electronic personal health records use among older cancer survivors: an application of Anderson’s behavioral model of health services use to eHealth services Online J Nurs Inform 2022 26 1 1

60 Luoh RP Tevaarwerk AJ Chandereng T Smith EM Carroll CB Emamekhoo H Sesto ME Patterns and predictors of cancer-specific patient health portal usage among patients with cancer: results from the UWCCC Survivorship Program Cancer Med 2021 10 10 20 7373 82 10.1002/cam4.4234 34453403 34453403 PMC8525111

61 McCleary NJ Greenberg TL Barysauskas CM Guerette EJ Hassan M Jacobson JO Schrag D Oncology patient portal enrollment at a comprehensive cancer center: a quality improvement initiative J Oncol Pract 2018 08 14 8 e451 61 10.1200/JOP.17.00008 30096276 30096276

62 Nahm ES Miller K McQuaige M Corbitt N Jaidar N Rosenblatt P Zhu S Son H Hertsenberg L Wickersham K La I Yoon J Powell K Testing the impact of a cancer survivorship patient engagement toolkit on selected health outcomes Oncol Nurs Forum 2019 09 01 46 5 572 84 10.1188/19.ONF.572-584 31424456 31424456

63 Ngo V Matsumoto CG Joseph JG Bell JF Bold RJ Davis A Reed SC Kim KK The personal health network mobile app for chemotherapy care coordination: qualitative evaluation of a randomized clinical trial JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 05 26 8 5 e16527 10.2196/16527 32452814 v8i5e16527 32452814 PMC7284410

64 O'Connor D Frankland J Watts J Brodie H Hamer K Foster C Richardson A Acceptability and usability of a patient portal for men with prostate cancer in follow-up care Front Digit Health 2022 11 14 4 1045445 10.3389/fdgth.2022.1045445 36452426 36452426 PMC9703137

65 Pho KK Lu R Gates S Cai J Xie D Xie Y Lee SJC Gerber DE Mobile device applications for electronic patient portals in oncology JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2019 03 3 3 1 8 10.1200/CCI.18.00094 30802142 PMC6873984 30802142

66 Rexhepi H Åhlfeldt RM Cajander Å Huvila I Cancer patients' attitudes and experiences of online access to their electronic medical records: a qualitative study Health Informatics J 2018 06 19 24 2 115 24 10.1177/1460458216658778 27440056 1460458216658778 27440056

67 Rexhepi H Huvila I Åhlfeldt RM Cajander Å Cancer patients' information seeking behavior related to online electronic healthcare records Health Informatics J 2021 07 23 27 3 14604582211024708 10.1177/14604582211024708 34296650 34296650

68 Rexhepi H Moll J Huvila I Online electronic healthcare records: comparing the views of cancer patients and others Health Informatics J 2020 12 11 26 4 2915 29 10.1177/1460458220944727 32914701 32914701

69 Santos AD Caine V Robson PJ Watson L Easaw JC Petrovskaya O Oncology patients' experiences with novel electronic patient portals to support care and treatment: qualitative study with early users and nonusers of portals in Alberta, Canada JMIR Cancer 2021 11 24 7 4 e32609 10.2196/32609 34822338 v7i4e32609 34822338 PMC8663539

70 Schultz CL Alderfer MA Are on-line patient portals meeting test result preferences of caregivers of children with cancer? A qualitative exploration Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018 11 14 65 11 e27306 10.1002/pbc.27306 30007016 30007016

71 Schultz CL McCahan SM Lewis AM Bunnell HT Alderfer MA Online patient portal use by caregivers in pediatric oncology: are we widening sociodemographic disparities? Pediatr Blood Cancer 2021 12 68 12 e29373 10.1002/pbc.29373 34582096 34582096

72 Shaverdian N Chang EM Chu FI Morasso EG Pfeffer MA Cheng EM Wu A McCloskey SA Raldow AC Steinberg ML Impact of open access to physician notes on radiation oncology patients: results from an exploratory survey Pract Radiat Oncol 2019 03 9 2 102 7 10.1016/j.prro.2018.10.004 30342179 S1879-8500(18)30298-4 30342179

73 Strekalova YA Electronic health record use among cancer patients: insights from the Health Information National Trends Survey Health Informatics J 2019 03 23 25 1 83 90 10.1177/1460458217704246 28434278 28434278

74 Tarver WL Robb BW Haggstrom DA Usefulness and usability of a personal health record and survivorship care plan for colorectal cancer survivors: survey study JMIR Cancer 2019 08 20 5 2 e10692 10.2196/10692 31432780 v5i2e10692 31432780 PMC6719487

75 Vachon E Robb BW Haggstrom DA Impact of a personal health record intervention upon surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: feasibility study JMIR Cancer 2022 08 11 8 3 e34851 10.2196/34851 35969424 v8i3e34851 35969424 PMC9412760

76 Weis A Pohlmann S Poss-Doering R Strauss B Ullrich C Hofmann H Ose D Winkler EC Szecsenyi J Wensing M Caregivers' role in using a personal electronic health record: a qualitative study of cancer patients and caregivers in Germany BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020 07 13 20 1 158 10.1186/s12911-020-01172-4 32660600 10.1186/s12911-020-01172-4 32660600 PMC7358207

77 Wickersham KE Powell K Guterman I O'Malley C Innovative use of patient portals during cancer survivorship: a first step J Oncol Navig Surviv 2019 10 3 90 6

78 Williamson RS Cherven BO Gilleland Marchak J Edwards P Palgon M Escoffery C Meacham LR Mertens AC Meaningful use of an electronic personal health record (ePHR) among pediatric cancer survivors Appl Clin Inform 2017 03 15 8 1 250 64 10.4338/ACI-2016-11-RA-0189 28293684 2016-11-RA-0189 28293684 PMC5373768

79 Wolff JL Aufill J Echavarria D Heughan J Lee KT Connolly RM Fetting JH Jelovac D Papathakis K Riley C Stearns V Thorner E Zafman N Levy HP Dy SM Wolff AC Sharing in care: engaging care partners in the care and communication of breast cancer patients Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019 08 4 177 1 127 36 10.1007/s10549-019-05306-9 31165374 10.1007/s10549-019-05306-9 31165374 PMC6640103