Development of Quality of Life in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer Using a Patient Support Smartphone App: Prepost Interventional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults often experience existential concerns in addition to side effects during a cancer trajectory, which they often carry alone. Thus, cohesion with other adolescents and young adults with cancer is essential but difficult due to the relatively small, widely dispersed nationwide population. In cocreation, a smartphone app has been developed and includes an information bank, a symptom tracker, and a social community platform, aiming to improve the quality of life (QoL) in this patient group. OBJECTIVE: This nationwide, multicenter study aimed to investigate the QoL in adolescents and young adults undergoing a cancer trajectory as they used the app for 6 weeks. METHODS: Via youth support initiatives, participants were recruited from hospitals in all regions of Denmark. Inclusion criteria were patients with cancer aged 15-29 years who either initiated any cancer treatment or started follow-up after cancer treatment within 30 days. Participants used the adolescents and young adults cancer app for 6 weeks. Before and after the 6 weeks of app use, they completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). The participants were divided into a treatment and a follow-up group for analysis. A high score for a functional scale or the global health or overall QoL represents a high or healthy level of functioning or high QoL, respectively; however, a high score for a symptom scale or item represents a high level of symptomatology. RESULTS: Overall, 81 participants were recruited. However, 4 participants did not answer the questionnaire and 6 participants did not use the app. In the treatment group (n=36), significant improvement was found in 2 domains: "Role functioning" (baseline median 33.33, IQR 16.67-83.33 vs 6 weeks median 66.67, IQR 33.33-83.33; P=.04) and "Pain" (baseline median 33.33, IQR 16.67-50.00 vs 6 weeks median 16.67, IQR 0.00-33.33; P=.04). The "Global health/Overall QoL" scale remained stable (baseline median 58.33, IQR 45.83-77.08 vs 6 weeks median 62.50, IQR 41.67-75.00; P=.25). In the follow-up group (n=35), significant improvement was found in 3 domains: "Physical functioning" (baseline median 79.23, IQR 73.33-93.33 vs 6 weeks median 82.86, IQR 73.33-100.00; P=.03), "Cognitive functioning" (baseline median 62.38, IQR 50.00-83.33 vs 6 weeks median 69.52, IQR 50.00-100.00; P=.02), and "Social functioning" (baseline median 76.19, IQR 50.00-100.00 vs 6 weeks median 85.71, IQR 83.33-100.00; P=.05), as well as in the "Global health/Overall QoL" scale (baseline median 57.14, IQR 83.33-100.00 vs 6 weeks median 75.0, IQR 62.91-85.73; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found an improvement in specific QoL scales for both participants in treatment and follow-up when using the app for 6 weeks. The global health or overall QoL score improved significantly in the follow-up group. In the treatment group, it remained stable. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/10098.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".