A Mobile App to Support Self-Management in Patients with Multiple Myeloma or Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Patients with blood cancer experience serious physical and emotional symptoms throughout their cancer journey. OBJECTIVE: Building on previous work, we aimed to develop an app designed to help patients with multiple myeloma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia self-manage symptoms and test it for acceptability and preliminary efficacy. METHODS: We developed our Blood Cancer Coach app with input from clinicians and patients. Our 2-armed randomized controlled pilot trial recruited participants from Duke Health and nationally in partnerships with the Association of Oncology Social Work, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and other patient groups. Participants were randomized to the attention control (Springboard Beyond Cancer website) arm or the Blood Cancer Coach app intervention arm. The fully automated Blood Cancer Coach app included symptom and distress tracking with tailored feedback, medication reminders and adherence tracking, multiple myeloma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia education resources, and mindfulness activities. Patient-reported data were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks for both arms through the Blood Cancer Coach app. Outcomes of interest were global health (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health), posttraumatic stress (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5), and cancer symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised). Among participants in the intervention arm, satisfaction surveys and usage data were used to evaluate acceptability. RESULTS: Among 180 patients who downloaded the app, 49% (89) of them consented to participate and 40% (72) of them completed baseline surveys. Of those who completed baseline surveys, 53% (38) of them completed week 4 surveys (16 intervention and 22 control) and 39% (28) of them completed week 8 surveys (13 intervention and 15 control). Most participants found the app at least moderately effective at helping manage symptoms (87%), feeling more comfortable seeking help (87%), increasing awareness of resources (73%), and reported being satisfied with the app overall (73%). Participants completed an average of 248.5 app tasks over the 8-week study period. The most used functions within the app were medication log, distress tracking, guided meditations, and symptom tracking. There were no significant differences between the control and intervention arms at week 4 or 8 on any outcomes. We also saw no significant improvement over time within the intervention arm. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our feasibility pilot were promising in which most participants found the app to be helpful in managing their symptoms, reported satisfaction with the app, and that it was helpful in several important areas. We did not, however, find significantly reduced symptoms or improved global mental and physical health over 2 months. Recruitment and retention were challenging for this app-based study, an experience echoed by others. Limitations included a predominantly White and college educated sample. Future studies would do well to include self-efficacy outcomes, target those with more symptoms, and emphasize diversity in recruitment and retention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05928156; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05928156.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».