IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i9-10p1367-1379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving access to supportive cancer care through an eHealth application: a qualitative needs assessment among cancer survivors

Author

Listed:
  • Sanne Lubberding
  • Cornelia F van Uden‐Kraan
  • Elisabeth A Te Velde
  • Pim Cuijpers
  • C René Leemans
  • Irma M Verdonck‐de Leeuw

Abstract

Aims and objectives To gain insight into cancer survivors' needs towards an eHealth application monitoring quality of life and targeting personalised access to supportive care. Background Supportive care in cancer addresses survivors' concerns and needs. However, many survivors are not taking advantage of supportive care provided. To enable cancer survivors to benefit, survivors' needs must be identified timely and effectively. An eHealth application could be a solution to meet patients' individual supportive care needs. Design A qualitative approach. Methods Thirty cancer survivors (15 head and neck and 15 breast cancer survivors) participated. The majority were female (n = 20·67%). The mean age was 60 (SD 8·8) years. Mean time interval since treatment was 13·5 months (SD 10·5). All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. During the interviews, participants were asked about their unmet needs during follow‐up care and a potential eHealth application. Data were analyzed independently by two coders and coded into key issues and themes. Results Cancer survivors commented that they felt unprepared for the post‐treatment period and that their symptoms often remained unknown to care providers. Survivors also mentioned a suboptimal referral pattern to supportive care services. Mentioned advantages of an eHealth application were as follows: insight into the course of symptoms by monitoring, availability of information among follow‐up appointments, receiving personalised advice and tailored supportive care. Conclusions Cancer survivors identified several unmet needs during follow‐up care. Most survivors were positive towards the proposed eHealth application and expressed that it could be a valuable addition to follow‐up cancer care. Relevance to clinical practice Study results provide care providers with insight into barriers that impede survivors from obtaining optimal supportive care. This study also provides insight into the characteristics needed to design, build and implement an eHealth application targeting personalised access to supportive care from the survivors' perspective. Future studies should address the viewpoints of care providers, and investigate the usability of the eHealth application prototype to facilitate implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanne Lubberding & Cornelia F van Uden‐Kraan & Elisabeth A Te Velde & Pim Cuijpers & C René Leemans & Irma M Verdonck‐de Leeuw, 2015. "Improving access to supportive cancer care through an eHealth application: a qualitative needs assessment among cancer survivors," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(9-10), pages 1367-1379, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:9-10:p:1367-1379
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12753
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12753?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victoria A. Shaffer & C. Adam Probst & Edgar C. Merkle & Hal R. Arkes & Mitchell A. Medow, 2013. "Why Do Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Based Diagnostic Support System?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 108-118, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bauer, Kevin & Nofer, Michael & Abdel-Karim, Benjamin M. & Hinz, Oliver, 2022. "The effects of discontinuing machine learning decision support," SAFE Working Paper Series 370, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    2. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl, 2022. "Radiologists’ Usage of Diagnostic AI Systems," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 64(3), pages 293-309, June.
    3. Gregory Weitzner, 2024. "Reputational Algorithm Aversion," Papers 2402.15418, arXiv.org.
    4. Chugunova, Marina & Sele, Daniela, 2022. "We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Chiara Longoni & Andrea Bonezzi & Carey K Morewedge, 2019. "Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 46(4), pages 629-650.
    6. Huang, Xiaozhi & Wu, Xitong & Cao, Xin & Wu, Jifei, 2023. "The effect of medical artificial intelligence innovation locus on consumer adoption of new products," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    7. Rebitschek, Felix G. & Gigerenzer, Gerd & Wagner, Gert G., 2021. "People underestimate the errors made by algorithms for credit scoring and recidivism prediction but accept even fewer errors," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 11, pages 1-11.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:9-10:p:1367-1379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.