Accessibility settings

Published on in Vol 12 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/92030, first published .
Elderly Asian woman in conversation with a healthcare professional.

The Application of eHealth in Symptom Management of Patients With Breast Cancer During Endocrine Therapy: Scoping Literature Review

The Application of eHealth in Symptom Management of Patients With Breast Cancer During Endocrine Therapy: Scoping Literature Review

Authors of this article:

Chengjia Gu1 Author Orcid Image ;   Lili Shen1 Author Orcid Image ;   Shiyu Zhang2 Author Orcid Image ;   Nan Zhang1 Author Orcid Image

1Comprehensive Breast Health Centre, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 197 Rui Jin Er Road, Shanghai, China

2Department of Nursing, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

Corresponding Author:

Nan Zhang, MSN


Background: Endocrine therapy is a fundamental treatment for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. However, treatment-related symptoms may lead to poor adherence and premature discontinuation, adversely affecting clinical outcomes. eHealth technology interventions have been widely applied as potential tools to support patient education, symptom management, and adherence.

Objective: This review aimed to evaluate the application, effectiveness, and limitations of eHealth technologies in symptom management among patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across 9 databases, including MEDLINE Complete, Academic Search Complete, PubMed, and CINAHL Ultimate, covering studies published between February 2015 and February 2025. Keywords included “breast cancer,” “endocrine therapy,” and “ehealth,” along with synonyms and related terms. Eligible studies examined the use of eHealth interventions in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. From 1352 records, 30 (2.2%) studies were included after screening and full-text review.

Results: The 30 included studies comprised 13 (43.3%) randomized controlled trials, 7 (23.3%) single-arm studies, 3 (10%) retrospective analyses, 2 (6.7%) observational studies, 3 (10%) mixed methods studies, and 2 (6.7%) qualitative studies. eHealth interventions, primarily mobile apps, telemonitoring systems, and SMS text messaging, demonstrated benefits in short-term symptom management, such as reductions in hot flashes, joint pain, anxiety, and sexual distress and improved medication adherence. However, evidence regarding long-term adherence and quality of life outcomes remains inconsistent. Considerable heterogeneity existed in study designs, adherence measures, and intervention components. Nurses were considered key contributors in implementing and monitoring eHealth interventions.

Conclusions: eHealth interventions show promise in improving symptom management and short-term adherence among patients with breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy. Methodological limitations and variability across studies restrict the strength of conclusions. Future research should prioritize long-term outcomes, standardized measures, and integration into routine clinical practice while incorporating perspectives from multiple stakeholders.

JMIR Cancer 2026;12:e92030

doi:10.2196/92030

Keywords



Breast cancer is heterogeneous, with approximately 80% of cases classified as hormone receptor positive [1,2]. Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET), primarily selective estrogenic receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors, is a standard treatment for patients that significantly reduces the risk of recurrence and mortality [3-5]. Clinical guidelines recommend 5 to 10 years of AET [6-8]. Despite its clinical benefits, adherence to endocrine therapy remains suboptimal. Studies indicate that up to one-third of patients discontinue treatment within 5 years, often due to treatment-related adverse effects, inadequate information, comorbidities, or patient preferences [9,10]. Common adverse effects include hot flashes, joint pain, osteoporosis, sexual dysfunction, weight gain, sleep disturbances, depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment [6,11]. These symptoms can impair quality of life (QOL) and contribute to nonadherence, ultimately affecting prognosis [12]. Therefore, effective symptom management is critical for improving adherence and clinical outcomes.

The World Health Organization has introduced the Global Strategy on Digital Health, emphasizing the integration of information and communications technologies to improve health outcomes [13]. In this review, eHealth refers to the use of digital tools such as mobile apps, SMS text messaging, telemedicine platforms, web-based portals, wearable devices, and electronic patient-reported outcome systems for real-time symptom monitoring, medication reminders, patient education, automated alerts, and remote self-management support [14]. Over the last 2 decades, eHealth has been increasingly used to support symptom monitoring, patient education, and remote care delivery [15]. Previous research has demonstrated the value of eHealth in chronic disease and cancer management, including symptom tracking, adherence support, and self-management [16,17].

Patients with breast cancer have used eHealth technologies for issues such as pain, sleep disorders, lymphedema, psychological distress, and chemotherapy side effects [18-22]. However, no comprehensive scoping review has synthesized evidence specifically on eHealth applications for symptom management during endocrine therapy. This review addresses that gap by evaluating the current evidence on effectiveness, strengths, limitations, and implementation considerations to inform clinical practice.


Search Strategy

This review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Checklist 1) to ensure thorough search quality and standardized processes [23,24]. Nine databases were searched: MEDLINE Complete, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Ultimate, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, APA PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. The search used combinations of terms for “breast cancer,” “endocrine therapy,” and “eHealth” supplemented with synonyms, academic terms, abbreviations, and related terminology. Boolean operators (“AND” and “OR”) were applied to combine terms for search strategy construction systematically. Limits included English-language, peer-reviewed articles focusing on the application of eHealth in breast cancer and published between February 2015 and February 2025. The full search strategy is detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of the search strategy for the literature review.
DomainDescription
Search keywords
Breast cancer“Breast Neoplasms” OR “Breast Tumor,” OR “Breast Cancer” OR “Mammary Cancer” OR “Malignant Neoplasm of Breast” OR “Breast Malignant Neoplasm” OR “Malignant Tumor of Breast” OR “Breast Malignant Tumor” OR “Cancer of Breast OR Mammary Carcinoma, Human” OR “Human Mammary Neoplasms”
Endocrine therapy“endocrine therapy” OR “endocrine treatment” OR “aet” OR “hormone therapy”
eHealthehealth OR e-health OR telecare OR telemedicine OR telehealth OR “digital health” OR mHealth OR teletherapy OR “smartphone App” OR “smartphone application” OR “health apps” OR “remote monitoring” OR “mobile app” OR “mobile application” OR “wearable devices” OR telemedicine OR tele-care OR telecare OR “Medicine, Virtua” OR “Tele Referral” OR tele-referrals OR tele-referral OR “Virtual Medicine” OR “Health, Mobile” OR “Mobile Health” OR telehealth OR “Electronic App” OR “Electronic Application” OR “Application, Mobile” OR “mobile phone” OR “smartphone” OR “text-, electronic-“ OR “multimedia-message” OR “electronic mail” OR “phone applications” OR “computer” OR “podcast” OR “videos” OR “internet” OR “website” OR “chatroom” OR “message board” OR “activity tracker” OR “electronic health” OR “mobile health” OR “telemedicine”
Other search parameters
Search limits2015-2025
Type of material searchedEnglish-language peer-reviewed scholarly articles
Databases searchedEBSCOhost databases (Academic Search Complete, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, CINAHL Ultimate, MEDLINE Complete, and APA PsycInfo), PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase

Eligibility Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were empirical research articles that examined the application of eHealth interventions specifically for symptom management or related outcomes, including medication adherence and QOL, among patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy in either the early or advanced disease stages. Exclusion criteria included animal studies, research protocols, review articles, conference abstracts, non–English-language publications, and studies that focused exclusively on other cancer treatments rather than endocrine therapy.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

A total of 1352 records were retrieved from the 9 databases, and 148 (10.9%) were removed based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining 1204 records were imported into the Zotero software (version 7; Corporation for Digital Scholarship), where 616 (51.2%) duplicates were removed. Among the remaining 588 records, title and abstract screening resulted in the exclusion of 504 (85.7%) studies, primarily due to irrelevant populations (non–breast cancer or non–endocrine therapy; n=295, 58.5%), irrelevant focus (chemotherapy only, screening, or survivorship care without endocrine therapy; n=110, 21.8%), nonempirical content (reviews, protocols, and abstracts; n=59, 11.7%), or focus on other diseases (n=40, 7.9%). Subsequently, of the remaining 84 records, 30 (35.7%) were excluded because the full texts could not be retrieved. Full-text assessment was then performed on the remaining 54 articles, of which 24 (44.4%) were excluded because they described only study protocols or were conducted on survivors of breast cancer without a specific focus on endocrine therapy. Ultimately, 30 articles met all eligibility criteria and were included in this review (see Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [25-54] for details). Data extracted included study design, participant characteristics, intervention details, outcomes (symptom management, adherence, QOL, and patient experiences), and key findings.

Risk-of-Bias Assessment

Two oncology nurse researchers assessed the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool independently [55]. Discrepancies, if any, were resolved by a third reviewer. Due to heterogeneity in designs, interventions, and outcome measures, no meta-analysis was performed. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists were used to evaluate methodological quality across study types [56].

Data Synthesis

Findings were synthesized thematically into three main aspects: (1) effectiveness and limitations of eHealth for symptom management and adherence, (2) the role of nurses, and (3) patient experiences and impact on QOL.


Overview

The 30 selected studies included 13 (43.3%) RCTs, 7 (23.3%) single-arm studies, 3 (10%) retrospective analyses, 2 (6.7%) observational studies, 3 (10%) mixed methods studies, and 2 (6.7%) qualitative studies. Most studies (n=17, 56.7%) were conducted in the United States, followed by Sweden (n=3, 10%); Japan and the United Kingdom (n=2, 6.7% each); and Germany, Turkey, Singapore, South Korea, and China (n=1, 3.3% each). Three key themes emerged from the review: (1) effectiveness and limitations regarding symptom management and adherence to endocrine therapy, (2) nurses’ role in eHealth interventions, and (3) experiences of patients with breast cancer with eHealth tools and the impact on QOL. The PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 Fflow Ddiagram of the literature review.

Effectiveness and Limitations of eHealth in Symptom Management

eHealth interventions, including mobile apps, telemonitoring, and SMS text messaging, facilitated timely self-reporting of symptoms and triggered alerts for health care providers. In total, 10% (3/10) of the studies allowed patients to self-report and record symptoms using mobile apps [29-31], whereas another 13.3% (4/30) of the studies used questionnaires to record patients’ symptoms [32-35], allowing for real-time data capture and proactive management.

A total of 20% (6/30) of the studies reported positive effects on symptom control using eHealth [36-41]. One RCT combining an educational website with telephone counseling significantly reduced sexual difficulties, distress, and anxiety compared with usual care [36]. Another RCT using a mobile education program with nurse reminders improved physical well-being, pain, emotional functioning, and endocrine-related symptoms at 3 months [57]. Teleconferencing interventions in 2 RCTs enhanced self-efficacy and reduced hot flashes and depression [41,42]. A longitudinal study of remote tai chi sessions via an app demonstrated reductions in joint pain, anxiety, and hot flashes after 12 weeks [38]. An app-based intervention in advanced endocrine treatment improved arm symptoms, cognitive function, anxiety, and depression [39]. The mobile app integrated daily exercise logging, medication adherence tracking, Fitbit activity data synchronization, personalized goal setting, educational modules on hormonal therapy side effects, and weekly progress visualizations, with automated feedback and nurse coach messaging. These eHealth tools enabled more accurate and timely symptom tracking, supporting personalized care plans and reducing symptom burden in the short term (typically 1 to 6 months) [29,31,35,42]. However, most studies focused on short-term outcomes and specific subgroups, such as patients with poor AET adherence [41], recent sexual activity [36], or aromatase inhibitor–induced arthralgia [38], limiting the generalizability of the findings. Patients with breast cancer on endocrine therapy often experience complex, interacting symptom clusters [22]; few interventions (1/30, 3.3%) addressed this holistically.

Medication Adherence

Medication adherence is commonly defined as taking medication as prescribed; nonadherence includes delays, dose deviations, or premature discontinuation [58]. Previous studies have shown that eHealth interventions have a significant impact on medication adherence in patients with chronic diseases and those taking medication for mental health conditions [59-61]. Medication adherence is addressed solely in relation to its direct correlation with effective symptom management; premature discontinuation is a subsequent result of inadequately controlled symptoms. Therefore, studies showing improved adherence were interpreted strictly as evidence of effective symptom control rather than as a separate end point.

Retrospective studies indicated 5-year adherence rates of 48% to 53%, primarily due to adverse events and symptoms [43-45]. Access to practical information, active monitoring of side effects, and effective medication reminders have been suggested to improve adherence [62]. A total of 16.7% (5/30) of the studies found that digital health tools, including SMS text messages, mobile apps, and emails, that incorporated symptom education, self-monitoring, and alerts, improved medication adherence [31,32,34,46,47]. Another 16.7% (5/30) of the studies reported benefits from reminder-based educational interventions [30,39,48,49]. However, other studies reported inconsistent results. In total, 15.4% (2/13) of the RCTs with 1- and 3-year follow-ups on SMS text messaging found no significant differences in adherence [33,50]. One retrospective study with telephone follow-up showed no long-term benefit [45], and one RCT on a mobile program reported no improvement despite educational modules [40]. Medication adherence was measured across several aspects: prescription fill rates of more than 80% [32,39], self-reports [31], estrogen level monitoring, and discontinuation rates (Table 2). The heterogeneity in measures and data collection and analysis methods contributed to variability in the findings. Improvements were mainly evident in short-term studies; long-term data remain limited, highlighting the need for sustained interventions.

Table 2. Summary of medication adherence measures in the literature review.
Mougalian et al [32]Hershman et al [33]Tan et al [50]Park et al [48]Takada et al [31]Smith et al [34]Wheeler et al [49]Chan et al [39]Krukowski et al [47]Jacobs et al [51]
Prescription fill rate exceeding 80%
Integrating urine analysis with self-reporting
Combining self-reporting with innovative bottle technology
Using estrogenic level measurements in conjunction with a simplified medication adherence report
Patient self-records
Discontinuation rates
Integrating prescription fill data with smart bottle opening data
Medication adherence reporting scale+smart pill bottle

Nurses’ Role in eHealth for Symptom Management

Nurses were the primary implementers in most interventions, leveraging eHealth to enable real-time symptom assessment, 2-way communication, prioritization of high-risk cases, and referrals [63-66]. A total of 13.3% (4/30) of the studies found that nurses enabled 2-way communication and referral by prioritizing high-risk symptoms [32,34,40,47]. Nurses sharing information through eHealth tools could improve both patient satisfaction and the quality of care [52,53]. Nurses delivered education via SMS text messages, app modules, and teleconferences, enhancing patients’ self-management skills and symptom control [29,33,37,41,67]. Moreover, the included interventions used dynamic, standardized, and structured assessments of both cognitive and somatic symptoms, which new data indicate are superior to conventional static questionnaires for earlier detection of clinically relevant changes and timely intervention [67].

Nurse involvement improved care efficiency, multidisciplinary collaboration, and resource use [68-70]. In total, 10% (3/30) of the studies, which were nurse led, showed that nurse-led approaches improved high-quality health care and reduced high-cost contacts and outpatient visits [46,47,53]. However, challenges included increased workload, role ambiguity, and the need for process adaptation [69,71]. Most evidence reflects patient perspectives; fewer studies (2/30, 6.7%) examined nurses’ or physicians’ acceptance and barriers. Cost-effectiveness evaluations were largely absent, underscoring the need for health economic analyses.

Patients’ Experiences With eHealth Tools and the Impact on QOL

In this review, patients generally expressed high satisfaction and acceptance of SMS text message reminders [32,50], teleconferencing [37], and mobile apps [29,54], citing ease of use, helpful information, and improved self-management (satisfaction often of >90%). Combined tools such as videoconferencing applications and wearables further enhanced satisfaction, and many patients were willing to continue using them [38,47,62]. A total of 20% (6/30) of the studies examined QOL impacts. Four of these studies reported significant improvements in various domains such as physical, emotional, or endocrine-specific typically after 1 to 6 months of using eHealth tools such as mobile apps with reminders or tele-education [31,39,51,52]. One study providing tele-education showed significant improvements in patients’ QOL after a 3-month intervention [52]. Another study used a teleconference education format and demonstrated significant improvement in patients’ QOL after 24 weeks of intervention [51]. However, 2 RCTs found no significant differences in QOL: one study implemented a mobile app with SMS text message reminders and follow-up assessments at 6 and 12 months [40], whereas the other integrated the app with a patient e-reporting intervention and assessed QOL at 3 months after the intervention [35].

Heterogeneity and variations in QOL study results likely stem from differences in QOL instruments [31,35,37,39,40] (Table 3). Various QOL measurement scales may yield different results when evaluating due to differences in study design, cultural appropriateness, and assessment dimensions [72-74]. The assessment of QOL in survivors of breast cancer requires a multidimensional approach encompassing physical, psychological, social, and spiritual well-being, indicating that the use of a single assessment tool may not fully capture the heterogeneity in their QOL trajectories [75]. This review found that eHealth interventions effectively improved patients’ QOL in the short term. However, the long-term effects and trends for patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine treatment remain to be thoroughly researched and explored.

Table 3. Summary of questionnaires assessing quality of life (QOL) in the literature review.
StudyFACT-ES QLSaEORTC QLQ-C30bEORTC QLQ-BR23cFACT-Bd12-Item Short Form Health SurveyValidity and reliabilityMeasurement results
Çınar et al [52], 2021There was a statistically significant difference in the total FACT-ES QLS scores (P<.05).
Jacobs et al [51], 2022There was a significant improvement in QOL in the intervention group at 24 wk (P<.01).
Takada et al [31], 2022The intervention did not negatively affect QOL.
Chan et al [39], 2024Subscale scores were significant: P=.02 for cognitive functioning, P=.04 for future prospective functioning, and P=.04 for arm symptom score.
Graetz et al [40], 2024Not statistically significant.
Okuyama et al [35], 2024Not statistically significant.

aFACT-ES QLS: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Endocrine Subscale Quality of Life Scale.

bEORTC QLQ-C30: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30.

cEORTC QLQ-BR23: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Breast Cancer Module.

dFACT-B: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast.

However, several limitations remain in sample selection when examining patients’ experience with eHealth interventions. In terms of sample inclusion, the mixed methods study by Jacobs et al [37] of patients with high levels of anxiety involved predominantly White patients with high symptom burden. Additionally, the single-arm study by Gomaa et al [38] only included patients who reported joint pain. Some studies (4/30, 13.3%) predominantly selected patients who were younger, White individuals, more educated, and economically privileged [32,38,40,47]. In terms of sample size, 2 mixed methods studies and 1 single-arm study lacked a control group. They had small sample sizes of 15 [29], 10 [54], and 39 [47]. Furthermore, several studies with low response rates (3/30, 10%) were noted [46,52,53]. The main reasons for this problem included lack of personalized interventions, poor user interface design, time constraints, technical difficulties, and privacy issues [32,47,49]. Therefore, the characteristics of nonresponding patients and patients who declined to be enrolled may introduce selection bias.


Principal Findings

This is the first scoping review to synthesize evidence on eHealth applications specifically for symptom management in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy, incorporating effectiveness, adherence, nurse roles, patient experience, and QOL. Interventions varied (mobile apps: 8/30, 26.7%; SMS text messaging: 5/30, 16.7%; telemedicine: 6/30, 20%; online portals: 3/30, 10%; hybrid electronic patient-reported outcomes+wearables: 2/30, 6.7%; remote tai chi: 1/30, 3.3%) but shared fundamental features: real-time data capture, threshold-triggered alerts, and remote feedback. Short-term benefits for symptom burden were consistent across app- and telemedicine-based approaches, although direct comparisons were limited. This comprehensive perspective not only facilitates an in-depth understanding of the mechanisms and actual effects of eHealth interventions but also provides valuable reference information for future clinical practice and research.

This review demonstrated eHealth’s efficacy in symptom monitoring and short-term management, with some positive effects on psychological symptoms and potential indirect benefits for adherence. However, many studies of symptom monitoring and management (4/30, 13.3%) applied single-arm designs with short follow-up periods, and adherence outcomes relied heavily on self-report, introducing bias [30-32,39]. The RCTs included in this review often lacked blinding, and interventions frequently targeted single symptoms or specific subgroups, overlooking complex symptom clusters and socioeconomic factors [33,40,47,48,50]. Nevertheless, this review found that eHealth interventions could improve patients’ medication adherence and short-term symptom management. However, current research relies heavily on one-sided quantitative data from patients while neglecting to assess the early warning systems of physicians and nurses.

This review revealed that nurses played a pivotal role in implementation, education, and coordination, contributing to efficiency and patient engagement. However, challenges such as workload, role clarity, and limited exploration of health care providers’ perspectives persist. Patient experiences were largely positive with high satisfaction, but generalizability is constrained by limited studies and equipment requirement issues [76,77]. QOL improvements were evident in the short term but inconsistent in the long term, partly due to measurement heterogeneity. In addition, most existing studies have examined the roles and functions of physicians and nurses in eHealth interventions primarily from the patient’s perspective. However, as the primary implementers of these technologies, health care providers’ own acceptance of eHealth tools and the barriers they encounter in daily practice remain underexplored.

This review indicates that eHealth interventions are generally associated with favorable patient experiences, high uptake rates, and positive short-term effects on QOL among patients with breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy. Prior literature similarly underscores this population’s expressed need for digital support. Nevertheless, several limitations constrain the generalizability of these findings. Many quantitative studies (4/30, 16.6%) featured small, relatively homogeneous samples, often restricted to participants with the necessary devices and digital access [31,38,39,49]. Low response rates to eHealth applications in some studies (6/30, 20%) further restricted applicability across diverse populations. These issues can hinder timely symptom detection and intervention for certain patient groups. Moreover, few studies have thoroughly explored patients’ specific needs in terms of tool design, particularly with respect to cultural adaptability.

The strengths of this review lie in its comprehensive literature search and the inclusion of diverse study designs, including RCTs, single-arm studies, retrospective analyses, observational studies, mixed methods studies, and qualitative research. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists, and the complementary nature of these methodologies, where RCTs help establish causality and qualitative studies provide rich insights into patient experiences, enhances the overall credibility of the synthesis. However, notable limitations were evident in the primary studies. Most (23/30, 76.6%) lacked adequate sample diversity and representativeness. In addition, the evidence base was heavily skewed toward high-income countries, with minimal data from low- and middle-income settings or rural areas, thereby limiting global applicability and scalability. Although the use of theories, models, and frameworks has been shown to strengthen the scientific rigor and explanatory depth of digital health research [78], only 13.3% (4/30) of the studies in this review were explicitly guided by such frameworks. Furthermore, most of the included RCTs (10/13, 76.9%) lacked blinding of participants or researchers, and 26.7% (8/30) of the studies used single-arm designs without control groups, both of which increase the risk of bias and reduce the robustness of the findings. In addition, the search period ended in February 2025, which may have omitted more recent high-impact publications. The restriction to English-language peer-reviewed articles may also have excluded relevant studies published in other languages. Despite these constraints, eHealth interventions demonstrate considerable potential to reduce symptom burden and improve adherence during endocrine therapy. Future research should prioritize long-term efficacy, greater equity in access, multi-stakeholder perspectives, and integration into routine oncology workflows to maximize real-world impact and sustainability.

Conclusions

eHealth interventions offer promising support for symptom management and short-term adherence among patients with breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy, with generally high patient acceptance. Nurses are central to successful implementation. However, evidence is limited by methodological heterogeneity, short follow-ups, inconsistent long-term outcomes, and a lack of diversity. By addressing individualized patient needs and incorporating experiences from multiple stakeholders (patients, physicians, and nurses), eHealth tools can be optimized to reduce symptom burden, improve adherence, and enhance clinical outcomes. Future studies should prioritize rigorous designs, standardized measures, long-term follow-up, and equitable implementation to realize the full potential of digital health in oncology care.

Acknowledgments

The authors declare that none of them used generative artificial intelligence in the research and writing process.

Funding

The authors declared no financial support was received for this work.

Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: CG

Data curation: CG, LS, SZ

Investigation: CG, LS, SZ

Methodology: CG

Formal analysis: CG, LS, SZ

Supervision: NZ

Writing – original draft: CG

Writing – review & editing: LS, SZ, NZ

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Summary of main characteristics of identified research, including research aim, outcome measures, and results.

DOCX File, 95 KB

Checklist 1

PRISMA-ScR Checklist.

PDF File, 185 KB

  1. Zhang Z, Wang J, Skinner KA, et al. Pathological features and clinical outcomes of breast cancer according to levels of oestrogen receptor expression. Histopathology. Oct 2014;65(4):508-516. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Rosso R, D’Alonzo M, Bounous VE, et al. Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients. Curr Oncol. Jan 21, 2023;30(2):1461-1472. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Record H, Clelland E, Rothschild HT, et al. Tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with ovarian function suppression in pre-menopausal stage I-III lobular breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. Oct 26, 2023;9(1):88. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Schiavon G, Smith IE. Status of adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(2):206. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Sasada S, Kondo N, Hashimoto H, et al. Prognostic impact of adjuvant endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative T1a/bN0M0 breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Dec 2023;202(3):473-483. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Burstein HJ, Lacchetti C, Anderson H, et al. Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol. Feb 10, 2019;37(5):423-438. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. Aug 2019;30(8):1194-1220. [CrossRef]
  8. Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, Abraham J, et al. Breast cancer, version 3.2022, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. Jun 2022;20(6):691-722. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Yussof I, Mohd Tahir NA, Hatah E, Mohamed Shah N. Factors influencing five-year adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Breast. Apr 2022;62:22-35. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Cavazza M, Banks H, Ercolanoni M, et al. Factors influencing adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer-treated women: using real-world data to inform a switch from acute to chronic disease management. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Aug 2020;183(1):189-199. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Franzoi MA, Agostinetto E, Perachino M, et al. Evidence-based approaches for the management of side-effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. Jul 2021;22(7):e303-e313. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Wang L, Wei T, Liu J, et al. Experiences and management needs of endocrine therapy-related symptoms in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis protocol. BMJ Open. Dec 2023;13(12):e073915. [CrossRef]
  13. Global strategy on digital health 2020-2027. World Health Organization. 2025. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240116870 [Accessed 2026-04-26]
  14. Ahern DK, Kreslake JM, Phalen JM. What is eHealth (6): perspectives on the evolution of eHealth research. J Med Internet Res. Mar 31, 2006;8(1):e4. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Boogerd EA, Arts T, Engelen LJ, van de Belt TH. “What is eHealth”: time for an update? JMIR Res Protoc. Mar 12, 2015;4(1):e29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Vaffis S, Whaley S, Axon DR, et al. Features of cancer mHealth apps and evidence for patient preferences: scoping literature review. JMIR Cancer. Apr 28, 2023;9:e37330. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Li X, Zhang N, Yang J, Geng Z, Zhou J, Zhang J. Weight management personas of breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in China: a multi-method study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Apr 25, 2024;24(1):108. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Reeves MM, Terranova CO, Winkler EA, et al. Effect of a remotely delivered weight loss intervention in early-stage breast cancer: randomized controlled trial. Nutrients. Nov 15, 2021;13(11):4091. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Du X, Li Y, Fu L, et al. Strategies in activating lymphatic system to promote lymph flow on lymphedema symptoms in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1015387. [CrossRef]
  20. Oswald LB, Morales-Cruz J, Eisel SL, et al. Pilot randomized controlled trial of eHealth cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia among Spanish-speaking breast cancer survivors. J Behav Med. Jun 2022;45(3):503-508. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Shi N, Wong AK, Wong FK, Zhang N, Lai X, Gan L. A nurse-led mHealth self-management program (mChemotherapy) for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: study protocol of a randomized controlled pilot study. Cancer Control. 2022;29:10732748221115469. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Jing F, Zhu Z, Qiu J, et al. Symptom clusters and quality of life in patients with breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy in China. Semin Oncol Nurs. Aug 2023;39(4):151443. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. Jul 21, 2009;6(7):e1000097. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18(2):e1230. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Krok-Schoen JL, Naughton MJ, Young GS, et al. Increasing adherence to adjuvant hormone therapy among patients with breast cancer: a smart phone app-based pilot study. Cancer Control. 2019;26(1):1073274819883287. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. Lally P, May CN, Mitchell ES, McCallum M, Michaelides A, Fisher A. Prototype of an app designed to support self-management for health behaviors and weight in women living with breast cancer: qualitative user experience study. JMIR Cancer. Dec 20, 2024;10:e48170. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. Brett J, Boulton M, Watson E. Development of an e-health app to support women prescribed adjuvant endocrine therapy after treatment for breast cancer. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:2639-2647. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Harbeck N, Kates R, Schinköthe T, et al. Favorable impact of therapy management by an interactive eHealth system on severe adverse events in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated by palbociclib and endocrine therapy. Cancer Treat Rev. Dec 2023;121:102631. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Bergqvist J, Lundström S, Wengström Y. Patient interactive digital support for women with adjuvant endocrine therapy in order to increase compliance and quality of life. Support Care Cancer. Jan 2021;29(1):491-497. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Neuner J, Weil E, Fergestrom N, et al. Feasibility of a pharmacist-led symptom monitoring and management intervention to improve breast cancer endocrine therapy adherence. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2022;62(4):1321-1328. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Takada F, Okuyama H, Nakamura S, Fujita KI. Application of personal health record in enhancing the quality of life in patients with breast cancer who received adjuvant hormonal therapy. Eur J Breast Health. Apr 2022;18(2):155-162. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Mougalian SS, Epstein LN, Jhaveri AP, et al. Bidirectional text messaging to monitor endocrine therapy adherence and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. Nov 2017;1:1-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Hershman DL, Unger JM, Hillyer GC, et al. Randomized trial of text messaging to reduce early discontinuation of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy in women with early-stage breast cancer: SWOG S1105. J Clin Oncol. Jul 1, 2020;38(19):2122-2129. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Smith KL, Tsai HL, Lim D, et al. Feasibility of symptom monitoring during the first year of endocrine therapy for early breast cancer using patient-reported outcomes collected via smartphone app. JCO Oncol Pract. Nov 2023;19(11):981-989. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  35. Okuyama H, Takada F, Taira N, Nakamura S. A randomized trial of the impact of symptom monitoring using an electronic patient-reported outcome app on health-related quality of life in postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer. Sep 2024;31(5):787-797. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Advani P, Brewster AM, Baum GP, Schover LR. A pilot randomized trial to prevent sexual dysfunction in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors starting adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy. J Cancer Surviv. Aug 2017;11(4):477-485. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. Jacobs JM, Walsh EA, Rapoport CS, et al. Development and refinement of a telehealth intervention for symptom management, distress, and adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy after breast cancer. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. Sep 2021;28(3):603-618. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Gomaa S, West C, Lopez AM, et al. A telehealth-delivered tai chi intervention (TaiChi4Joint) for managing aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia in patients with breast cancer during COVID-19: longitudinal pilot study. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(6):e34995. [CrossRef]
  39. Chan WL, Wong YL, Tai YL, et al. Digital rehabilitation program for breast cancer survivors on adjuvant hormonal therapy: a feasibility study. Cancers (Basel). Dec 5, 2024;16(23):4084. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Graetz I, Hu X, Kocak M, et al. Remote monitoring app for endocrine therapy adherence among patients with early-stage breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. Jun 3, 2024;7(6):e2417873. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Walsh LE, Dunderdale L, Horick N, Temel JS, Greer JA, Jacobs JM. Intervention-related changes in coping ability drives improvements in mood and quality of life for patients taking adjuvant endocrine therapy. Psychooncology. Dec 2024;33(12):e70049. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Richardson D, Zhan L, Mahtani R, et al. A prospective observational study of patient-reported functioning and quality of life in advanced and metastatic breast cancer utilizing a novel mobile application. Breast Cancer Res Treat. May 2021;187(1):113-124. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Harrell M, Fabbri D, Levy M. Analysis of adjuvant endocrine therapy in practice from electronic health record data of patients with breast cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. Nov 2017;1:1-8. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. Yin Z, Harrell M, Warner JL, Chen Q, Fabbri D, Malin BA. The therapy is making me sick: how online portal communications between breast cancer patients and physicians indicate medication discontinuation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Nov 1, 2018;25(11):1444-1451. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  45. Aurell C, Haidar A, Giglio D. Follow-up routines matter for adherence to endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting of breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2024;18:11782234241240171. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  46. Graetz I, McKillop CN, Stepanski E, Vidal GA, Anderson JN, Schwartzberg LS. Use of a web-based app to improve breast cancer symptom management and adherence for aromatase inhibitors: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. J Cancer Surviv. Aug 2018;12(4):431-440. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  47. Krukowski RA, Hu X, Arshad S, et al. Symptom monitoring app use associated with medication adherence among woman survivors of breast cancer on adjuvant endocrine therapy. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. Dec 2024;8:e2400179. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Park HR, Kang HS, Kim SH, Singh-Carlson S. Effect of a smart pill bottle reminder intervention on medication adherence, self-efficacy, and depression in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2022;45(6):E874-E882. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Wheeler SB, Spencer J, Drier SW, Fray N, Reeder-Hayes KE. Motivational interviewing counseling to increase endocrine therapy adherence in diverse patients. Cancers (Basel). Mar 25, 2023;15(7):1973. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Tan EH, Wong AL, Tan CC, et al. Improving medication adherence with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor in women with breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of short message service (SMS) reminder. Breast. Oct 2020;53:77-84. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Jacobs JM, Post K, Massad K, et al. A telehealth intervention for symptom management, distress, and adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. Oct 1, 2022;128(19):3541-3551. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  52. Çınar D, Karadakovan A, Erdoğan AP. Effect of mobile phone app-based training on the quality of life for women with breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. Jun 2021;52:101960. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Ahlstedt Karlsson S, Henoch I, Olofsson Bagge R, Wallengren C. Person-centred support programme (RESPECT intervention) for women with breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy: a feasibility study. BMJ Open. Oct 5, 2022;12(10):e060946. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  54. Nathan M, Beatty L, Coborn J, et al. Targeting psychological and menopausal factors linked to non-adherence to anti-estrogen therapy in women with early-stage hormone-receptor positive breast cancer: a web-based feasibility study of Finding My Way. Psychooncology. Sep 2023;32(9):1461-1465. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2019:205-228. [CrossRef]
  56. Long HA, French DP, Brooks JM. Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2020;1(1):31-42. [CrossRef]
  57. ÇInar D, Karadakovan A, Erdoğan AP. The effect of e-mobile education on the quality of life in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. Oct 2019;30(Supplement 5):v818-v819. [CrossRef]
  58. Vrijens B, De Geest S, Hughes DA, et al. A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. May 2012;73(5):691-705. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Basit SA, Mathews N, Kunik ME. Telemedicine interventions for medication adherence in mental illness: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2020;62:28-36. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. Chilala CI, Kassavou A, Sutton S. Evaluating the effectiveness of remote behavioral interventions facilitated by health care providers at improving medication adherence in cardiometabolic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Behav Med. Feb 4, 2023;57(2):99-110. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  61. Kim SK, Park SY, Hwang HR, Moon SH, Park JW. Effectiveness of mobile health intervention in medication adherence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Syst. Jan 17, 2025;49(1):13. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  62. Cahir C, Bennett K, Dombrowski SU, et al. Informing interventions to improve uptake of adjuvant endocrine therapy in women with breast cancer: a theoretical-based examination of modifiable influences on non-adherence. Support Care Cancer. Mar 4, 2023;31(3):200. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  63. Farokhzadian J, Khajouei R, Hasman A, Ahmadian L. Nurses’ experiences and viewpoints about the benefits of adopting information technology in health care: a qualitative study in Iran. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Sep 21, 2020;20(1):240. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  64. Paatela S, Kyytsönen M, Saranto K, Kinnunen UM, Vehko T. Experiences of electronic health records’ and client information systems’ use on a mobile device and factors associated with work time savings among practical nurses: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. May 29, 2024;26:e46954. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  65. Alipour J, Mehdipour Y, Zakerabasali S, Karimi A. Nurses’ perspectives on using mobile health applications in southeastern Iran: awareness, attitude, and obstacles. PLoS One. 2025;20(3):e0316631. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  66. Yada H, Soejima K. Digital transformation in cardiology ― mobile health. Circ J. 2026;90(1):3-11. [CrossRef]
  67. Trojan A, Kühne C, Kiessling M, et al. Impact of electronic patient-reported outcomes on unplanned consultations and hospitalizations in patients with cancer undergoing systemic therapy: results of a patient-reported outcome study compared with matched retrospective data. JMIR Form Res. May 6, 2024;8:e55917. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  68. van Steenbergen G, van Veghel D, van Lieshout D, Sperwer M, Ter Woorst J, Dekker L. Effects of video-based patient education and consultation on unplanned health care utilization and early recovery after coronary artery bypass surgery (IMPROV-ED): randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Aug 26, 2022;24(8):e37728. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  69. Theodore BR, Whittington J, Towle C, et al. Transaction cost analysis of in-clinic versus telehealth consultations for chronic pain: preliminary evidence for rapid and affordable access to interdisciplinary collaborative consultation. Pain Med. Jun 2015;16(6):1045-1056. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  70. van der Meij E, Anema JR, Otten RH, Huirne JA, Schaafsma FG. The effect of perioperative e-health interventions on the postoperative course: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158612. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  71. Theiler RN, Butler-Tobah Y, Hathcock MA, Famuyide A. OB Nest randomized controlled trial: a cost comparison of reduced visit compared to traditional prenatal care. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. Jan 21, 2021;21(1):71. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  72. Bok SK, Song Y, Lim A, Choi H, Shin H, Jin S. Korean translation and psychometric evaluation of Korean version EORTC QLQ-BRECON23. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Dec 8, 2020;17(24):9163. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  73. Clarijs ME, Oemrawsingh A, Bröker ME, Verhoef C, Lingsma H, Koppert LB. Quality of life of caregivers of breast cancer patients: a cross-sectional evaluation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. Feb 19, 2022;20(1):29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  74. Dewi IP, Gartika N, Sanusi S, Suryatiningsih D. Determinants of spiritual well-being that impact breast cancer patients’ quality of life. J Holist Nurs. Jun 2024;42(2_suppl):S40-S46. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  75. Chopra I, Kamal KM. A systematic review of quality of life instruments in long-term breast cancer survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes. Jan 31, 2012;10:14. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  76. Frennert S, Petersson L, Muhic M, et al. Materiality and the mediating roles of eHealth: a qualitative study and comparison of three cases. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221116782. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  77. Frennert S, Petersson L, Erlingsdottir G. “More” work for nurses: the ironies of eHealth. BMC Health Serv Res. Apr 27, 2023;23:411. [CrossRef]
  78. Rouleau G, Wu K, Ramamoorthi K, et al. Mapping theories, models, and frameworks to evaluate digital health interventions: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. Feb 5, 2024;26:e51098. [CrossRef] [Medline]


AET: adjuvant endocrine therapy
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
QOL: quality of life
RCT: randomized controlled trial


Edited by Matthew Balcarras; submitted 24.Jan.2026; peer-reviewed by Andreas Trojan; final revised version received 14.Apr.2026; accepted 15.Apr.2026; published 04.Jun.2026.

Copyright

© Chengjia Gu, Lili Shen, Shiyu Zhang, Nan Zhang. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 4.Jun.2026.

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 JMIR Cancer, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://cancer.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.