JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Advances in cancer treatment have steadily increased the number of people living with cancer, and home-based digital health services are increasingly proposed to deliver continuous, personalised support beyond the hospital. However, digital health products are iterating rapidly and proliferating in type, and many such services are designed around technological feasibility rather than patients’ own preferences, and the evidence on what cancer patients actually want from these services has not been systematically mapped.

Objective:

To synthesise the available evidence on cancer patients’ preferences for home-based digital health services, with particular attention to study characteristics, the methods used to elicit preferences, and facilitators of and barriers to acceptance.

Methods:

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. Eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Ovid including PsycINFO, and EBSCOhost) were searched from inception to October 10, 2026. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies reporting cancer patients’ preferences for home-based digital health services were eligible. Data were charted and synthesised narratively.

Results:

Thirteen studies published between 2022 and 2026 were included, conducted in China (n = 5), the United States (n = 3), the Netherlands (n = 2), and Iran, Canada, and Saudi Arabia (n = 1 each). Sample sizes ranged from 8 to 2,459 participants. Across the included studies, cancer patients consistently preferred services offering emotional support, convenience, personalisation, and immediate access; instructional videos were preferred over text-based messages, and personalised online support was preferred over generic supportive messages. The most frequently reported barriers were a preference for face-to-face care, privacy concerns, low eHealth literacy, technical difficulties, and constant illness reminders, whereas convenience, emotional support, personalisation, and time savings were the most frequently reported facilitators. Only two studies employed discrete choice experiments.

Conclusions:

Current evidence is limited in volume and geographic scope and is dominated by descriptive qualitative designs. Future studies applying theory-grounded preference-elicitation methods—including, but not limited to, discrete choice experiments—in more diverse cancer populations are needed to quantify patients’ preferences for the attributes of home-based digital health services and to guide patient-centred service development. Clinical Trial: The review protocol was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (OSF; DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/J6XPY).