MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419063376 · doi:10.2196/cancer.5334

Patients’ and Health Care Providers’ Opinions on a Supportive Health App During Breast Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Evaluation

2016· article· en· W2419063376 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danny A. Young‐Afat, Carla H. van Gils, David J. Bruinvels, Carmen C. van der Pol, Arjen J. Witkamp, Sieta Sijtsema, Y Jonasse, Rhodé M. Bijlsma, Margreet G.E.M. Ausems, Annelies M. E. Bos, H.J.G.D. van den Bongard, Helena M. Verkooijen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineFamily medicineHealth careCancerClinical PracticeQualitative researchNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health apps are increasingly being used in clinical care and may hold significant theoretical potential. However, they are often implemented in clinical care before any research has been done to confirm actual benefits for patients, physicians, and researchers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore experiences of patients and health care providers with the use of a supportive breast cancer app during the first 6 months following diagnosis, in terms of benefits for clinical practice and research purposes. METHODS: Between June 2013 and April 2014, breast cancer patients of all ages were invited shortly after diagnosis to use a supportive breast cancer app, and were followed for 6 months. Patients were asked to use the app at their own convenience. In-depth interviews were conducted regularly with patients and their medical team (ie, physicians and nurses) to evaluate their experiences. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients aged 30-63 years participated. The medical team consisted of 7 physicians and 3 specialized breast cancer nurses. Out of the 15 patients, 12 (80%) used the app to obtain information on breast cancer and treatment. A total of 11 out of 12 patients (92%) evaluated this information as useful. All 15 patients used the app to record consultations with practitioners, and 14 (93%) found this useful. Symptom registration was used by 8 out of 15 patients (53%), and was found useful by 4 out of these 8 patients (50%). Overall, 14 out of 15 patients (93%) would recommend the app to other patients. The app, in particular the recording function, was rated as useful by 9 out of 10 medical professionals (90%), and they reported that it did not increase consultation time. These 9 professionals would recommend the app to their patients. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation of a supportive health app shows positive experiences among patients and their medical teams. Based on experiences in this study, patients may need to be actively encouraged to regularly register symptoms within health apps to generate sufficient patient-reported app data for use in clinical practice and scientific research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.437 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207