Exploring Older Adult Cancer Survivors’ Digital Information Needs: Qualitative Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Older adults (aged >65 years) are disproportionately affected by cancer at a time when Canadians are surviving cancer in an unprecedented fashion. Contrary to persistent ageist assumptions, not only do the majority of older adult cancer survivors use digital health technologies (DHTs) regularly, such technologies also serve as important sources of their health information. Although older adults' transition to cancer survivorship is connected to the availability and provision of relevant and reliable information, little evidence exists as to how they use DHTs to supplement their understanding of their unique situation to manage, and make decisions about, their ongoing cancer-related concerns. Objective: This pilot study, which examined older adult cancer survivors' use of DHTs, was conducted to support a larger study designed to explore how digital health literacy dimensions might affect the management of cancer survivorship sequelae. Understanding DHT use is also an important consideration for digital health literacy. Thus, we sought to investigate older adult cancer survivors' perceptions of DHTs in the context of accessing information about their health, health care systems, and health care providers. Methods: A qualitative pilot study, which involved semistructured interviews with older adult cancer survivors (N=5), was conducted to explore how participants interacted with, accessed, and searched for information, as well as how DHT use related to their cancer survivorship. Institutional ethics approval (#21-0421) was obtained. Interpretive description inquiry-a practice-based approach suitable for generating applied knowledge-supported exploration of the research question. Thematic analysis was used to examine the transcripts for patterns of meaning (themes). Results: Assessing the credibility of digital information remains challenging for older adult cancer survivors. Identified benefits of DHTs included improved access to meet health information needs, older adult cancer survivors feeling empowered to make informed decisions regarding their health trajectory, and the ability to connect with interdisciplinary teams for care continuity. Additionally, participants described feeling disconnected when DHTs seemed to be used as substitutes for human interaction. The results of this pilot study were used to create 12 additional questions to supplement a digital health literacy survey, through which we will seek a more fulsome account of the relationship between digital health literacy and DHTs for older adult cancer survivors. Conclusions: Overall, this pilot study confirmed the utility of DHTs in enhancing the connection of older adult cancer survivors to their health care needs. Importantly, this connection exists on a continuum, and providing greater access to technologies, in combination with human support, leads to feelings of empowerment. DHTs are an important aspect of contemporary health care; yet, these technologies must be seen as complementary and not as replacements for human interaction. Otherwise, we risk dehumanizing patients and disconnecting them from the care that they need and deserve.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| 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".