Cancer Patient and Survivor Research From the Cancer Information Service Research Consortium: A Preview of Three Large Randomized Trials and Initial Lessons Learned

Marcus, Alfred C.; Diefenbach, Michael A.; Stanton, Annette L.; Miller, Suzanne M.; Fleisher, Linda; Raich, Peter C.; Morra, Marion E.; Perocchia, Rosemarie Slevin; Tran, Zung Vu; Bright, Mary Anne

doi:10.1080/10810730.2012.743629

Cited by 29 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After the initial screening and subsequent full-text assessment, nine relevant studies were eligible (Table 2), with four published in 2013. Eligible studies include eight randomized controlled trials, one of which [37] has only published preliminary results and one pre-/post-quasi-experimental study [5].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Significant improvements in knowledge/ recall using CBLSs were shown by four studies [8,[37][38][39]. Using a crossover study design and repeat testing, Gyomber et al [38] found that these results were maintained.…”

Section: Knowledge/recallmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Six of nine publications [8,9,[37][38][39][40] investigated knowledge/recall (Table 3). Significant improvements in knowledge/ recall using CBLSs were shown by four studies [8,[37][38][39].…”

Section: Knowledge/recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies [10,37,[39][40][41] reported decision-making outcomes, with conflicting results (Table 5). Decisionmaking measures varied across studies.…”

Section: Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Decisionmaking measures varied across studies. Two studies [37,39] reported positive outcomes with CBLSs.…”

Section: Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Literature Review of Patient Education: Is IT Time to Move Forward?

McIntyre

Craig

2015

Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Patient education is fundamental to high-quality care, enabling patient empowerment and improving outcomes and quality of life. Therefore, identifying the most effective education method should take precedence. Modern society relies heavily on technology and the Internet. Consequently, computer-based learning systems (CBLSs) have been introduced to increase information efficacy. This review aims to establish whether CBLSs should replace standard education for cancer populations.Methods: A systematic review of up-to-date studies comparing CBLSs and standard education for cancer patients was conducted. Results were assessed in terms of outcomes (knowledge, satisfaction, and decision making) and patient characteristics (age, sex, and socioeconomic status).Results: Results are conflicting. Although CBLSs scored highly in certain outcomes, standard education was more suited to some patient characteristics. Additionally, subgroups of society (older and low socioeconomic populations) were poorly represented in studies.Conclusions: Up-to-date research on cancer patient education is lacking. Results indicate that although CBLSs for cancer education show promise, further research is required. R ESUM E Introduction : L' education du patient est un aspect fondamental de la qualit e des soins, en permettant la responsabilisation du patient et l'am elioration des r esultats et de la qualit e de vie. La d etermination de la m ethode d' education la plus efficace est donc primordiale. Comme la soci et e moderne s'appuie fortement sur la technologie et internet, les syst emes d'apprentissage assist e par ordinateur (SAAO) ont et e mis en place pour augmenter l'efficacit e de l'information. Cette revue vise a d eterminer si les SAAO devraient remplacer les modalit es standard d' education pour les patients atteints de cancer. M ethodologie : Une revue syst ematique des etudes a jour comparant les SAAO et les modalit es standard pour les patients a et e r ealis ee. Les r esultats ont et e evalu es en termes de produits (connaissances, satisfaction, prise de d ecision) et de caract eristiques du patient (âge, sexe, statut socio economique).R esultats : Les r esultats sont ambigus. Bien que les SAAO obtiennent une note elev ee pour certains produits, les modalit es d' education standard sont mieux adapt ees a certaines caract eristiques des patients. Par ailleurs, certains sous-groupes sociaux (populations plusâg ees et de niveau socio economique plus faible) etaient sous-repr esent es dans les etudes.Conclusions : Il y a un manque de recherches a jour sur l' education des patients atteints de cancer. Les r esultats indiquent que d'autres recherches sont n ecessaires, même si les syst emes d'apprentissage assist e par ordinateur semblent prometteurs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowledge/recallmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Knowledge/recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies [10,37,[39][40][41] reported decision-making outcomes, with conflicting results (Table 5). Decisionmaking measures varied across studies.…”

Section: Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Decisionmaking measures varied across studies. Two studies [37,39] reported positive outcomes with CBLSs.…”

Section: Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Literature Review of Patient Education: Is IT Time to Move Forward?

McIntyre

Craig

2015

Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cancer health self‐efficacy improvement in a randomized controlled trial

Hudson

Diefenbach

Wiseman

et al. 2021

Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: eHealth interventions can help cancer survivors self-manage their health outside the clinic. Little is known about how best to engage and assist survivors across the age and cancer treatment spectra. METHODS: The American Cancer Society conducted a randomized controlled trial that assessed efficacy of, and engagement with, Springboard Beyond Cancer, an eHealth self-management program for cancer survivors. Intent-to treat analyses assessed effects of intervention engagement for treatment (on-treatment vs completed) overall (n = 176; 88 control, 88 intervention arm) and separately by age (<60 years vs older). Multiple imputation was used to account for participants who were lost to follow-up (n = 41) or missing self-efficacy data (n = 1) at 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: Self-efficacy for managing cancer, the primary outcome of this trial, increased significantly within the intervention arm and for those who had completed treatment (Cohen's d = 0.26, 0.31, respectively). Additionally, participants with moderate-to-high engagement in the text and/or web intervention (n = 30) had a significantly greater self-efficacy for managing cancer-related issues compared to the control group (n = 68), with a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.44). Self-efficacy did not differ between the intervention and control arm at 3 months post-baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Study results suggest that cancer survivors benefit variably from eHealth tools. To maximize effects of such tools, it is imperative to tailor information to a priori identified survivor subgroups and increase engagement efforts.

show abstract

Examining the effectiveness and implementation of patient treatment decision‐aid tools for men with localised prostate cancer: A systematic review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) often face a difficult process deciding on a treatment choice that suits their personal preferences. This systematic review examines the impact of patient treatment decision‐aids (DAs) on decisional outcomes and treatment choice for men diagnosed with LPC. Our secondary aim was to examine how DAs have been implemented into routine clinical practice. Methods A systematic search was conducted up to June 2022 using the following databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. Articles were included if they evaluated the effectiveness of treatment DAs for LPC patients on various decisional outcomes and treatment choice. The Mixed‐Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality and risk of bias. Data on implementation outcomes were also extracted if reported. Results Twenty‐four articles were included for the analysis (seven non‐randomised studies, 16 randomised control trials, and one qualitative study). Results showed DAs have the potential to improve patient knowledge but revealed no effects on decisional regret or preparedness in decision‐making. Due to the variability in methodology among studies, results varied widely for treatment choice, decision‐making involvement, decisional conflict, and treatment decision satisfaction. At least one implementation outcome was reported in 11 of the included studies, with the most commonly assessed outcomes being acceptability and appropriateness. Conclusions While DAs appear to improve knowledge, further qualitative evaluations and standardised assessments are needed to better understand men's experiences using DAs and to determine advantages and optimal ways to implement DAs into the treatment decision‐making pathway.

show abstract

Cancer Patient and Survivor Research From the Cancer Information Service Research Consortium: A Preview of Three Large Randomized Trials and Initial Lessons Learned

Cited by 29 publications

References 86 publications

A Literature Review of Patient Education: Is IT Time to Move Forward?

A Literature Review of Patient Education: Is IT Time to Move Forward?

Cancer health self‐efficacy improvement in a randomized controlled trial

Examining the effectiveness and implementation of patient treatment decision‐aid tools for men with localised prostate cancer: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About