Background: Digital health technologies have expanded tremendously in the last two decades, creating an emerging research and clinical field. They are regarded as cost‐effective, and their use in healthcare is prioritized by many countries. However, the constant evolution of these technologies has led to an abundance of related literature. Thus, we conducted an umbrella review to identify and characterize digital supportive care interventions for patients with cancer and their relatives.Methods: A preregistered umbrella review was conducted (PROSPERO registration number CRD42022333110). Five databases were searched (Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library). To be considered, studies had to be systematic reviews or meta‐analyses, be performed on pediatric or adult patients with cancer or survivors or their relatives, report results on web‐based or app‐based supportive care interventions, and measure psychological, functional, or behavioral variables or quality of life related to cancer. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the AMSTAR‐2 tool.Findings: Twenty eligible studies were identified. Most of the included studies reported results from adult patients with cancer. Globally, digital interventions were shown to be effective for physical activity in patients with cancer but had mixed results regarding emotional outcomes and quality of life. Additionally, a lack of methodological quality was noted for most of the included reviews.Discussion: Digital supportive care interventions could be an effective tool in cancer care for some outcomes. Recommendations have been formulated for further research in this field using adapted methodologies for the development of digital health interventions.

Objectives: Traditionally, the literature investigating patient‐reported outcomes in relation to cancer survival focused on negative factors such as distress. Meta‐analyses in this field have provided a clear identification of negative affect that reduce cancer survival (e.g., depression). Nevertheless, positive psychological factors and especially positive affect might be equally crucial for cancer survival but have been neglected so far. While studies in this domain have been conducted, they remain less numerous and have produced mixed results.Methods: A pre‐registered systematic review and meta‐analysis (https://osf.io/jtw7x) aimed at identifying the positive affect linked to mortality in cancers were conducted. Four databases (Pubmed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched to find longitudinal studies linking positive affect to survival in cancers. Two reviewers completed each stage of the study selection process, the data extraction, and the Quality in Prognosis Studies risk of bias assessments.Results: Twenty‐four studies involving 822,789 patients were included based on the 2462 references identified. The meta‐analysis reveals that positive affect is associated with longer survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% CI [0.86, 0.96], z = −3.58, p < 0.001) and lower mortality (Odd Ratio [OR] = 0.59; 95% CI [0.45, 0.78], z = −3.70, p < 0.001). Sub‐group analyses indicated that the main predictors of survival are emotional and physical well‐being, optimism, and vitality.Conclusion: This work emphasizes the need to consider the role of affective mechanisms in patients with cancer, including their levels of well‐being or optimism to provide the most favorable conditions for survival. Therefore, stronger and continuous effort to improve patients' positive affect could be particularly beneficial for their life expectancy.

Objective: Conspiracy beliefs (CBs) can have substantial consequences on health behaviours by influencing both conventional and non‐conventional medicine uptake. They can target powerful groups (i.e. upward CBs) or powerless groups (i.e. downward CBs). Considering their repercussions in oncology, it appears useful to understand how CBs are related to the intentions to use conventional, complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). Design and Methods: This paper includes two pre‐registered online correlational studies on a general French population (Study 1 N = 248, recruited on social media M _age = 40.07, SD _age = 14.78; 205 women, 41 men and 2 non‐binaries; Study 2 N = 313, recruited on social media and Prolific, M _age = 28.91, SD _age = 9.60; 154 women, 149 men and 10 non‐binaries). We investigated the links between generic and chemotherapy‐related CBs and intentions to use conventional, complementary and alternative medicines. Study 2 consisted of a conceptual replication of Study 1, considering the orientation of CBs. Results: Generic CBs and chemotherapy‐related CBs appear strongly and positively correlated, negatively correlated with intentions to take conventional medicine and positively with intentions to take CAM. The link between generic CBs and medication intention is fully mediated by chemotherapy‐related CBs. When distinguished, upward CBs are a stronger predictor of chemotherapy‐related CBs than downward CBs. Conclusions: The findings suggest that intentions to use medicine are strongly associated with CBs. This has several important implications for further research and practice, notably on the presence and effects of CBs on medication behaviours in cancer patients.

Personalized medicine (PM) is increasingly becoming a topic of discussion in public health policies and media. However, there is no consensus among definitions of PM in the scientific literature and the terms used to designate it, with some definitions emphasizing patient-centered aspects and others emphasizing biomedical aspects. Furthermore, terms used to refer to PM (e.g., “pharmacogenomics” or, more often, “targeted therapies”) are diverse and differently used. To our knowledge, no study has apprehended the differences of definition and attitudes toward personalized medicine and targeted therapies according to level of familiarity with the medical field. Our cohort included 349 French students from three different academic fields, which modulated their familiarity level with the medical field. They were asked to associate words either to “personalized medicine” or “target therapies”. Then, they were asked to give an emotional valence to their associations. Results showed that nonfamiliar students perceived PM as more positive than targeted therapies (TT), whereas familiar students showed no difference. Only familiar students defined PM and TT with technical aspects such as genetics or immunology. Further studies are needed in the field in order to determine which other factors could influence the definitions of PM and TT and determine how these definitions could have an impact in a clinical setting.

Gastric and oesophageal cancers are common. They are also expected to increase in incidence in the next few years and are characterized by poor prognosis. Surprisingly, whereas the incidence of severe anxiety and depression is high in patients with gastric and oesophageal cancers, the influence of symptoms of depression and anxiety on postoperative complications has barely been explored. In a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database, 629 cancer patients were enrolled. Symptoms of depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores) and sociodemographic and medical information were collected immediately after diagnosis and before any treatment. The surgical approach (i.e. gastrectomy or oesophagectomy) and postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were collected after surgery. After controlling for known medical predictors (i.e. surgical strategy, alcohol and tobacco consumption, American Society of Anaesthesiologists classification physical status score) of postoperative complications, no effect of symptoms of depression or anxiety was detected. The observed results are surprising given the literature. However, several potential arguments can be put forwards regarding methods and measures, controlling variables, and conceptual distinctions. Despite the absence of significant results, this topic should be more deeply investigated by applying methodological and conceptual adjustments.

Cancer is an important issue and a model topic for misinformatfion researchers. The present research experimentally investigates the effect of cancer‐related conspiracy beliefs and misinformation on oncology treatment intentions in a cancer‐free population. In three pre‐registered studies (N total = 1020), participants were asked to put themselves in the shoes of a patient recommended for chemotherapy. Study 1 (N = 300) failed to experimentally manipulate cancer‐related conspiracy beliefs with exposure to a health scandal not related to cancer. In Study 2 (N = 258), exposure to a pro‐conspiracy (vs. anti‐conspiracy) content related to cancer treatment was associated with more conspiracy beliefs, less intention to use chemotherapy and more intentions to use unconventional medicines. Exploratory analyses revealed that these effects were conditioned by the credibility of the misinformation. Study 3 (N = 462) replicated these findings using a full experimental design. Exposure (vs. no exposure) to a warning and accuracy prompt, prior to exposure to the pro‐conspiracy content, was found to be effective in reducing its credibility and preventing its detrimental effects. These findings corroborate the existence of an effect of conspiracy beliefs on treatment intentions in oncology and also suggest several ways to mitigate them.