A multi‐centre randomized controlled trial of mobile gynaecological cancer support program for patients with gynaecological cancer undergoing chemotherapy: Study protocol

Lin, Huicong; Chan, Sally Wai-Chi; Ye, Mingzhu; Wang, Yanlong; Liu, Hongli; Li, Min; Liu, Shengjie; Zhu, Jiemin

doi:10.1111/jan.14809

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many apps did not support a specific cancer treatment (23/73, 32%) [ 46 , 51 , 53 , 62 , 71 - 74 , 83 , 84 , 86 , 88 , 93 , 95 , 98 , 99 , 104 , 105 , 108 , 112 , 117 , 118 , 121 , 124 , 126 ]. The most frequent treatment specifications were chemotherapy (15/73, 21%) [ 47 , 50 , 55 , 63 , 64 , 70 , 78 , 85 , 87 , 101 , 110 , 114 - 116 , 119 , 127 , 129 , 131 ], oral anticancer treatments (13/73, 18%) [ 9 , 48 , 52 , 56 - 58 , 65 , 76 , 80 , 82 , 90 , 91 , 94 , 111 , 122 , 128 ], radiotherapy (3/73, 4%) [ 54 , 92 , 120 ], and others (8/73, 11%) [ 12 , 16 , 45 , 59 , 60 , 66 - 69 , …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 91 studies, 78 (86%) [8,9,12,16, were research articles, whereas 13 (14%) [119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131] Owing to their heterogeneous nature, the selected articles had different study durations, ranging from 2 weeks for small-scale trials to up to 2 years for larger-scale RCTs. The median sample size of the study participants was 51, ranging from a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 4475 patients.…”

Section: Overview Of Selected Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding the intervention source, the literature reported that participating in the development phase increased the likelihood of later embracing the technology. Most analyzed apps have been developed collaboratively [8,53,[55][56][57][58]62,72,73,75,77,87,101,103,104,107,109,114,[116][117][118]122,127,131], often including HCPs, potential patients, and external technology partners responsible for actual software development [56,66,71,78,89,97,105,125,127,129,130]. For instance, the development of eOncoSalud was carefully planned during a series of 7 nominal consensus meetings involving a wide range of stakeholders [56].…”

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…mHealth users can be patients, clinicians, a broader pool of health care professionals (HCPs), or different combinations of users. Most commonly, apps are designed for both patients and clinicians (42/73, 58%)[12,16,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]58,59,61,63,66,67,69,75,77,[84][85][86]89,[91][92][93][94]96,98,100,101,[104][105][106]108,110,[112][113][114][115][116]119,120,[122][123][124][125][127][128][129]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…55,57-63,65,67,70,71,73-87,90-92, 94-104,107-116,119-122,128-131], 37 in Global quality of life[8,57,60,62,64,65,68,72,75,78,84,86,[88][89][90][91]93,97,101,103,105,106,112,114,115,[119][120][121][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131], 16 in Emotional functioning and well-being[66,70,77,83,89,90,93,106,115,119,[125][126][127][128]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating Barriers and Facilitators to the Uptake of mHealth Apps in Cancer Care Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: Scoping Literature Review

Ardito¹,

Golubev²,

Ciani³

et al. 2023

JMIR Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mobile health (mHealth) solutions have proven to be effective in a wide range of patient outcomes and have proliferated over time. However, a persistent challenge of digital health technologies, including mHealth, is that they are characterized by early dropouts in clinical practice and struggle to be used outside experimental settings or on larger scales. Objective This study aimed to explore barriers and enablers to the uptake of mHealth solutions used by patients with cancer undergoing treatment, using a theory-guided implementation science model, that is, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Methods A scoping literature review was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases in March 2022. We selected studies that analyzed the development, evaluation, and implementation of mHealth solutions for patients with cancer that were used in addition to the standard of care. Only empirical designs (eg, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative studies) were considered. First, information on the study characteristics, patient population, app functionalities, and study outcomes was extracted. Then, the CFIR model was used as a practical tool to guide data collection and interpretation of evidence on mHealth uptake. Results Overall, 91 papers were included in the data synthesis. The selected records were mostly randomized controlled trials (26/91, 29%) and single-arm, noncomparative studies (52/91, 57%). Most of the apps (42/73, 58%) were designed for both patients and clinicians and could be used to support any type of cancer (29/73, 40%) and a range of oncological treatments. Following the CFIR scheme (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals, process), multistakeholder co-design, codevelopment, and testing of mHealth interventions were identified as key enablers for later uptake. A variety of external drivers emerged, although the most relevant outer incentive fostering mHealth use was addressing patient needs. Among organizational factors likely to influence technology uptake, interoperability was the most prominent, whereas other providers’ dimensions such as managerial attitudes or organizational culture were not systematically discussed. Technology-related impediments that could hamper the use of mHealth at the individual level were considered least often. Conclusions The hype surrounding mHealth in cancer care is hindered by several factors that can affect its use in real world and nonexperimental settings. Compared with the growing evidence on mHealth efficacy, knowledge to inform the uptake of mHealth solutions in clinical cancer care is still scarce. Although some of our findings are supported by previous implementation research, our analysis elaborates on the distinguishing features of mHealth apps and provides an integrated perspective on the factors that should be accounted for implementation efforts. Future syntheses should liaise these dimensions with strategies observed in successful implementation initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of Selected Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluating Barriers and Facilitators to the Uptake of mHealth Apps in Cancer Care Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: Scoping Literature Review

Ardito¹,

Golubev²,

Ciani³

et al. 2023

JMIR Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

App-based interventions to improve cancer outcomes rely on informational support from professionals: a systematic review

Villinger,

Berli,

Scholz

2024

Health Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of a mobile application for patients living with gynaecological cancer on their physical and psychosocial adaptation study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Vardar,

Serçekuş

2024

Int J Palliat Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Education of patients with cancer and patient self-management allow better clinical outcomes using e-health or mobile health applications. Aims: To develop a mobile application to increase the physical and psychosocial adaptation for patients with gynecological cancer who are receiving chemotherapy and to investigate the effectiveness of the mobile application. Methods: This study was planned as a parallel, single-blind, pre-post test randomised controlled experimental study in which two groups (intervention-control) will be compared. A total of 52 gynecological cancer patients were planned to be included in the study. Findings: This study is in the protocol stage. Therefore, the results of the study have not yet been reported. Conclusions: Evidence-based information within JineOnkolojik Destek provides rich data on coping with chemotherapy. In addition, the visual and auditory elements, real patient stories and videos, and the ability to ask questions and receive counselling from the research team can positively affect the physical and psychosocial health of the cancer survivors.

show abstract

A multi‐centre randomized controlled trial of mobile gynaecological cancer support program for patients with gynaecological cancer undergoing chemotherapy: Study protocol

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Evaluating Barriers and Facilitators to the Uptake of mHealth Apps in Cancer Care Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: Scoping Literature Review

Evaluating Barriers and Facilitators to the Uptake of mHealth Apps in Cancer Care Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: Scoping Literature Review

App-based interventions to improve cancer outcomes rely on informational support from professionals: a systematic review

The effect of a mobile application for patients living with gynaecological cancer on their physical and psychosocial adaptation study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About