IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i14p8284-d857370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the Feasibility of an Application-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring for Breast Cancer Patients: A Pretest for the PRO B Study

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Maria Hage

    (Department of Gynecology and Breast Center, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Pimrapat Gebert

    (Berlin Institute of Health at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Friedrich Kühn

    (Department of Gynecology and Breast Center, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany)

  • Therese Pross

    (Department of Gynecology and Breast Center, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany)

  • Ulrike Grittner

    (Berlin Institute of Health at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Maria Margarete Karsten

    (Department of Gynecology and Breast Center, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

In preparation for the PRO B study which aims to examine the effects of an app-based intensified patient-reported outcome (PRO) monitoring for metastatic breast cancer patients, prior assessment of its feasibility was carried out. Sixteen breast cancer patients visiting the breast cancer unit at Charité were recruited and downloaded an app connected to an ePRO system. They received electronic questionnaires on two occasions (baseline and the following week) and were subsequently contacted for a semi-structured phone interview for evaluation. Eleven participants answered at least one questionnaire. Some participants did not receive any or only a part of the questionnaires due to technical problems with the app. Participants who completed the evaluation questionnaire ( n = 6) were overall satisfied with the weekly PRO questionnaire. All interviewed ( n = 11) participants thought it was feasible to answer the PRO questionnaires on a weekly basis for one year, as planned in the PRO B study. The pretest revealed a need for major technical adjustments to the app because push notifications about the receipt of new questionnaires were not displayed on some smartphone models. Due to the low number of participants, generalization of the findings is limited to our specific context and study. Nevertheless, we could conclude that if technical aspects of the app were improved, the PRO B study could be implemented as planned. The ePRO questionnaire was considered feasible and adequate from the patients’ perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Maria Hage & Pimrapat Gebert & Friedrich Kühn & Therese Pross & Ulrike Grittner & Maria Margarete Karsten, 2022. "Examining the Feasibility of an Application-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring for Breast Cancer Patients: A Pretest for the PRO B Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-8, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8284-:d:857370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8284/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8284/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8284-:d:857370. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.