eHealth Practices in Cancer Survivors With BMI in Overweight or Obese Categories: Latent Class Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: eHealth technologies have been found to facilitate health-promoting practices among cancer survivors with BMI in overweight or obese categories; however, little is known about their engagement with eHealth to promote weight management and facilitate patient-clinician communication. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether eHealth use was associated with sociodemographic characteristics, as well as medical history and experiences (ie, patient-related factors) among cancer survivors with BMI in overweight or obese categories. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey). Latent class analysis was used to derive distinct classes among cancer survivors based on sociodemographic characteristics, medical attributes, and medical experiences. Logistic regression was used to examine whether class membership was associated with different eHealth practices. RESULTS: Three distinct classes of cancer survivors with BMI in overweight or obese categories emerged: younger with no comorbidities, younger with comorbidities, and older with comorbidities. Compared to the other classes, the younger with comorbidities class had the highest probability of identifying as female (73%) and Hispanic (46%) and feeling that clinicians did not address their concerns (75%). The older with comorbidities class was 6.5 times more likely than the younger with comorbidities class to share eHealth data with a clinician (odds ratio [OR] 6.53, 95% CI 1.08-39.43). In contrast, the younger with no comorbidities class had a higher likelihood of using a computer to look for health information (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.10-3.38), using an electronic device to track progress toward a health-related goal (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.08-3.79), and using the internet to watch health-related YouTube videos (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.52-4.81) than the older with comorbidities class. CONCLUSIONS: Class membership was associated with different patterns of eHealth engagement, indicating the importance of tailored digital strategies for delivering effective care. Future eHealth weight loss interventions should investigate strategies to engage younger cancer survivors with comorbidities and address racial and ethnic disparities in eHealth use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".