A Smartphone Remote Monitoring App to Follow Up Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Requirement Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer survivors face multiple challenges after discharge. eHealth may potentially support them by providing tools such as smartphone apps. They have lots of capabilities to exchange information and could be used for remote monitoring of these patients. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we addressed the required features for apps designed to follow up colorectal cancer patients based on survivors' and clinical experts' views. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted. Features of related apps were extracted through the literature; the features were categorized, and then, they were modified. A questionnaire was designed containing the features listed and prioritized based on the MoSCoW (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won't have) technique and an open question for each category. The link to the questionnaire was shared among clinical experts in Iran. The answers were analyzed using the content validity ratio (CVR), and based on the value of this measure, the minimum feature set of a monitoring app to follow up patients with colorectal cancer was addressed. In addition, a telephone interview with colorectal cancer survivors was conducted to collect their viewpoints regarding a remote monitoring system for colorectal cancer cases. RESULTS: The questionnaire contained 10 sections evaluating 9 categories of features. The questionnaire was completed by 18 experts. The minimum set of features in the app was identified as patient information registration, sign and symptom monitoring, education, reminders, and patient evaluation (0.42 < CVR < 0.85). Features including physical activity, personalized advice, and social network did not achieve the minimum score (-0.11 < CVR < 0.39). We interviewed 9 colorectal cancer survivors. Information registration, sign and symptom monitoring, education, and personalized advice were the features with high priority from the survivors' perspectives. Scheduling, shopping, and financial support features were emphasized by survivors in the interview. CONCLUSIONS: The requirement set could be used to design an app for the targeted population or patients affected by other cancers. As the views from both survivors and clinical experts were considered in this study, the remote system may more adequately fulfill the need for follow-up of survivors. This eases the patients' and health care providers' communication and interaction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".