Figure 1 illustrates the flow of studies into this review. In summary, a total of 412 records were returned from the initial searches. After removing duplicate articles, the titles and abstract of 392 records were screened. Of these, 14 articles were deemed eligible for full-text review. Finally, 8 articles (57%) were included. Also, two studies during database assessment based on keyword were included because of study type and existence nurse in title [14, 15].
Characteristics of included studies:
Table 1 present the characters of included studies. The studies was conducted in various countries including Iran (n = 2), japan (n = 1), Denmark (n = 1), China (n = 1), USA (n = 2), and Brazil (n = 1). In total, of person 803 were participated that include control (n = 159), telenursing group (n = 184) and face to face group (n = 34). One article was one telenursing group. Five articles were two groups (control and intervention group) and One of studies was in trial include three groups (control, face to face and telenursing group). one of five articles was telephone calls plus WeChat (n = 106)versus telephone calls only(n = 125)[14]. Also, One of studies was four groups including Placebo + Non-NTI(n = 48), Placebo + NTI(n = 50), Methylphenidate + Non-NTI(n = 47), and Methylphenidate + NTI (n = 45) [15]. Some samples were eliminated in studies. Also, in included studies, there were various interventional groups. Type of cancer in studies including GI (n = 164), Lung and Cardiothoracic (n = 113), Gynecological, Prostate, and Urological (n = 80), Breast (n = 75), Hematologic (n = 34), Melanoma (n = 25), Head and neck (n = 16), postoperative Prostate cancer (n = 125), Patients with Cancer with New Ostomies (n = 28), and other (n = 40). Participates of One study were caregiver of cancer (n = 103).
Quality assessment of study:
Table 1 present the jaded score for included articles. In this study, the jaded tool was calculated by two researchers for quality of included studies. Bohnenkamp et al [16], Sato et al [17], and Qiao et al[14] were low quality with jaded score 2, 1, and 2 respectively. Shohani et al[18] and Ebrahimabadi et al [19]were Moderate quality with jaded score 3. Also, three of studies were high quality [15, 20, 21].
Telenursing and Satisfaction Survey and cost:
Quasi-experimental study of Bohnenkamp et al assess impact of telenursing for stoma self-care among patient with cancer[16]. The compromising between satisfaction rates of patients in telenursing groups (93%) higher than home health visits (81%), significantly. Also, this study the other aspect between two groups was compromised. Telenursing visits cost was lower than home visits ($44.10). Number of visits in home health visit group was 6.29. While telenursing visit groups were home visit lower than other group. In this group, 3.57 visits of them were telenursing. Final cost of two group that The TN group had more visits without significant increasing costs. In the study of Jensen et al investigate telenursing based telephone consultation after prostate surgery among intervention and control groups. Satisfaction and Sense of security in intervention group was higher than control group, but it was no significant [21].
Telenursing and supportive care needs of patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy and quality of care:
Two studies assess telenursing intervention on supportive care and quality of care in patients with cancer and caregiver its. Both of them indicate that telenursing is effective on outcomes. However, sometimes the result of study shows no effect of telenursing. Ebrahimabadi et al assess the effect of telenursing on supportive care needs using The SCNs-SF34 questionnaire that include 5 dimensions psychological, health system and information (HIS), patient care and support, physical and daily living, and sexuality. One of important aspects of study was one and two month follow-up. The mean score showed that in all of domains and in total and follow up, intervention groups were lower than control groups. In the study of Shohani et al that compare the effects of face‑to‑face and telenursing training methods on the quality of services provided by the family caregiver for patients with cancer[18]. In this study, three groups determine including control group, telenursing groups and face‑to‑face groups. In this study, the two method interventional were effective than control group.
Telenursing and prevent of Complication due to cancer:
Other part of studies was complication of cancer treatment and prevents it. Surgery is one of treatments of cancer. two of studies assesses effect of telenursing on postoperative Complications in Patients with Prostate Cancer[17, 21]. Also, this study assess outcome one and three months after surgery. EPIC and FACTG scores, and symptoms and QOL was 3 months later better than 1 month later and telenursing system in this study was effective for increasing self-efficacy of patients. Also, Jensen et al assess the tele-nursing consultations after radical prostatectomy. Post-operative discomfort in various sections including Catheter, Wound, Bowel function, Pain, Limitations in ADL, Need of assistance, and Need of more information during admission between the both groups was no significant. In visual analogue scale, Discomfort and limitation by studied factor in compromising between interventional and control group was no different [21]. other study demonstrate Nausea, Degree of nausea, Vomiting, and Number of vomiting episodes among control and intervention groups during several time after chemotherapy. This study showed telenursing based telephone intervention decrease nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy [20].
Pain and Fatigue:
Cancer-related-fatigue has assessed by Bruera et al in patients with advanced cancer. In this study, patients with cancer with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale higher four classified four group including Placebo + Non- Nursing Telephone Intervention, Placebo + Nursing Telephone Intervention, Methylphenidate + Non- Nursing Telephone Intervention, and Methylphenidate + Nursing Telephone Intervention and time of trial was 14 day. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), the ESAS, anxiety, depression, and sleep at day 15 were evaluated in Baseline, day 8, and day 15. The differences of Median score in in the FACIT-F fatigue subscale and ESAS fatigue scores between various groups were no significant. In Nursing Telephone Intervention, Fatigue, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, sleep, and feeling of well-being in ESAS symptoms were improved significant. But, fatigue, depression, and shortness of breath were improved in control telephone intervention group[15]. Qiao et al compare the effect of two groups including telephone calls only and telephone calls with booklets WeChat during interventional eight weeks. The studied outcomes were pain score, Medication adherence, and Side effects of analgesics. The Pain score mean at rest was WeChat group (1.48 ± 1.497) and telephone only (3.57 ± 2.175) that was declined, significantly. But, The Pain score mean at Movement in WeChat group (3.07 ± 2.395) and telephone only (4.47 ± 2.201) was no significant. Also, Pain score pre- and post-intervention in WeChat group was decrease significant [14].