The definition and elements, through ongoing refinement, will contribute to a robust evidence base that will underpin policy development and the systematic and effective teaching, delivery, measurement and evaluation of fundamental care.

PurposePatients undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer suffer from a variety of symptoms which influence health-related quality of life. We have developed an application (Interaktor) for smartphones and tablets for early detection, reporting and management of symptoms, and concerns during treatment for prostate cancer. The study evaluates the effect on symptom burden and quality of life when using the application for real-time symptom assessment and management during radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.MethodsA non-randomized controlled study was used at two university hospitals in Sweden where 64 patients constituted a control group and 66 patients made up an intervention group. The intervention group was asked to report symptoms via the application daily during the treatment as well as 3 weeks after. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and its module PR25 and the Sense of Coherence questionnaire were administered at three time points in both groups.ResultsThe intervention group rated significantly lower levels of fatigue and nausea at the end of radiotherapy. Moreover, they had significantly less burden in emotional functioning, insomnia, and urinary-related symptoms at the end of treatment as well as 3 months later compared with the control group. In the multivariate analyses, with education and sense of coherence as covariates, the intervention group still significantly rated emotional functioning (p = 0.007), insomnia (p = 0.017), and urinary-related symptoms (p = 0.008) as better than the control group at T2.ConclusionStudy findings suggest that Interaktor could be an efficient mHealth tool for facilitating supportive care needs during cancer treatment.

The use of an app should be considered as a useful information and communication technology innovation that can improve communication and accessibility for older people with home-based health care.

None of the studies reviewed reported intervention description in sufficient detail or presented sufficiently strong evidence of effectiveness to merit routine implementation of any of these interventions into practice. The positive outcomes reported suggest that further investigation of some interventions may be merited, but high caution must be exercised. Preference should be shown for further investigating interventions reported as effective in studies with a stronger design such as randomised controlled trials.