Feasibility of a Mobile Phone App and Telephone Coaching Survivorship Care Planning Program Among Spanish-Speaking Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spanish-speaking Latina breast cancer survivors experience disparities in knowledge of breast cancer survivorship care, psychosocial health, lifestyle risk factors, and symptoms compared with their white counterparts. Survivorship care planning programs (SCPPs) could help these women receive optimal follow-up care and manage their condition. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a culturally and linguistically suitable SCPP called the Nuevo Amanecer (New Dawn) Survivorship Care Planning Program for Spanish-speaking breast cancer patients in public hospital settings, approaching the end of active treatment. METHODS: The 2-month intervention was delivered via a written bilingual survivorship care plan and booklet, Spanish-language mobile phone app with integrated activity tracker, and telephone coaching. This single-arm feasibility study used mixed methods to evaluate the intervention. Acceptability and feasibility were examined via tracking of implementation processes, debriefing interviews, and postintervention satisfaction surveys. Preliminary efficacy was assessed via baseline and 2-month interviews using structured surveys and pre- and postintervention average daily steps count based on activity tracker data. Primary outcomes were self-reported fatigue, health distress, knowledge of cancer survivorship care, and self-efficacy for managing cancer follow-up health care and self-care. Secondary outcomes were emotional well-being, depressive and somatic symptoms, and average daily steps. RESULTS: All women (n=23) were foreign-born with limited English proficiency; 13 (57%) had an elementary school education or less, 16 (70%) were of Mexican origin, and all had public health insurance. Coaching calls lasted on average 15 min each (SD 3.4). A total of 19 of 23 participants (83%) completed all 5 coaching calls. The majority (n=17; 81%) rated the overall quality of the app as "very good" or "excellent" (all rated it as at least "good"). Women checked their daily steps graph on the app between 4.2 to 5.9 times per week. Compared with baseline, postintervention fatigue (B=-.26; P=.02; Cohen d=0.4) and health distress levels (B=-.36; P=.01; Cohen d=0.3) were significantly lower and knowledge of recommended follow-up care and resources (B=.41; P=.03; Cohen d=0.5) and emotional well-being improved significantly (B=1.42; P=.02; Cohen d=0.3); self-efficacy for managing cancer follow-up care did not change. Average daily steps increased significantly from 6157 to 7469 (B=1311.8; P=.02; Cohen d=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: We found preliminary evidence of program feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy, with significant 2-month improvements in fatigue, health distress, and emotional well-being and increased knowledge of recommended follow-up care and average daily steps. Tailored mobile phone and health coaching SCPPs could help to ensure equitable access to these services and improve symptoms and physical activity levels among Spanish-speaking Latina breast cancer survivors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".