An Intervention Offering Self-management Support Through mHealth and Health Coaching to Patients With Prostate Cancer: Interpretive Description of Patients’ Experiences and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational management strategies such as active surveillance and watchful waiting are considered to be acceptable approaches in patients with low-risk localized prostate cancer and a safe alternative to aggressive treatment. During observational management, treatment is postponed until the disease progresses, which often never occurs. However, approximately 90% of patients with a low-risk disease choose aggressive treatment owing to anxiety. Strategies to address anxiety are needed for optimal management of this population and to improve the quality of life of patients with low-risk localized prostate cancer. A review highlighted that mobile health (mHealth) in tandem with health coaching can support patients' self-management of health behaviors and improve well-being. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore patients' experiences with and perspectives on an intervention offering self-management support through the use of mHealth devices and health coaching to identify supportive features that enable patients to perform sustainable changes that improve well-being. METHODS: We used an interpretive description approach, combining semistructured interviews with 13 purposively selected patients with prostate cancer and participant observations of patient-coach interactions in coaching sessions. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed. The self-determination theory was used as a theoretical lens. Field notes and coaching notes from each session were used to orient data generation and confirm or challenge the analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis suggested that patients' self-awareness and psychological identity influenced their experiences with and perspectives on the self-management support offered by mHealth and health coaching in clinical practice. The patients' individual experiences and perspectives indicated that they placed themselves in a dynamic continuum of sustaining or repressing their identity, self-awareness, and individual qualities. Our analysis revealed 4 interacting themes, all related to the psychological identity of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: For the group of patients with prostate cancer to experience well-being, we found it important for them to sustain their self-image when offered a self-management intervention. Motivation and autonomy were important aspects for the individual patients to sustain their self-image throughout the intervention. In contrast, demotivation and a sense of paternalism could result in fostering an experience of having to repress self-awareness.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".