Exploring the Impact of the Multimodal CAPABLE eHealth Intervention on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Melanoma Undergoing Immune-Checkpoint Inhibition: Prospective Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with melanoma receiving immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors often experience immune-related adverse events, cancer-related fatigue, and emotional distress, affecting health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and clinical outcome to immunotherapy. eHealth tools can aid patients with cancer in addressing issues, such as adverse events and psychosocial well-being, from various perspectives. Objective: This study aimed to explore the effect of the Cancer Patients Better Life Experience (CAPABLE) system, accessed through a mobile app, on HRQoL compared with a matched historical control group receiving standard care. CAPABLE is an extensively tested eHealth app, including educational material, remote symptom monitoring, and well-being interventions. Methods: This prospective pilot study compared an exploratory cohort that received the CAPABLE smartphone app and a multisensory smartwatch for 6 months (intervention) to a 2:1 individually matched historical prospective control group. HRQoL data were measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 at baseline (T0), 3 months (T1), and 6 months (T2) after start of treatment. Mixed effects linear regression models were used to compare HRQoL between the 2 groups over time. Results: From the 59 eligible patients for the CAPABLE intervention, 31 (53%) signed informed consent to participate. Baseline HRQoL was on average 10 points higher in the intervention group compared with controls, although equally matched on baseline and clinical characteristics. When correcting for sex, age, disease stage, and baseline scores, an adjusted difference in fatigue of -5.09 (95% CI -15.20 to 5.02, P=.32) at month 3 was found. No significant nor clinically relevant adjusted differences on other HRQoL domains over time were found. However, information satisfaction was significantly higher in the CAPABLE group (β=8.71, 95% CI 1.54-15.88, P=.02). Conclusions: The intervention showed a limited effect on HRQoL, although there was a small improvement in fatigue at 3 months, as well as information satisfaction. When aiming at personalized patient and survivorship care, further optimization and prospective investigation of eHealth tools is warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 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".