Effectiveness of a Smartphone Application as a Support Tool for Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Handa, Satoko; Okuyama, Hiromi; Yamamoto, Hiroaki; Nakamura, Seigo; Kato, Yasuhisa

doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2020.01.004

Cited by 48 publications

(169 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

157

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 22 included studies, the earliest study was from 2014 [30], the latest from 2020 [35][36][37] with the majority (fourteen) being published since 2018 [32-37, 44, 45, 47-52]. Eighteen studies were randomised and included 1 cross over design [50], 5 cluster randomised [39,41,44,47,51] and 12 individually randomised trials [30-32, 34, 36-38, 40, 43, 45, 49, 52].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining four were quasi-experimental pre-post controlled trials [33,35,42,48]. Studies took place in nine countries -USA [30,31,37,39,40,42,43,45], Australia [35,51,52], Iran [32,34,47], China [41,44], Japan [36,49], Taiwan [48], Niger [38], Germany [50] and Demark [33].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies focused on the domain of disease prevention (cancer screening [39] and malaria health literacy [38]), eight focused on healthcare (diabetes [30,37], gestational diabetes [32], breast cancer [36], cardiac conditions [33,34], one or more chronic conditions [35] and people taking two or more medications daily [31]). The remaining 12 studies focused on health promotion with eight focusing on general health promotion [41,42,44,45,48,[50][51][52], two focusing on nutrition [40,43], one on nutrition and physical activity [49] and one on smoking prevention [47].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies included 10,997 participants. Six studies focused exclusively on women [32,36,39,40,43,48], the remaining 16 included both genders. One study did not provide a gender split [41] but the remaining 15 studies had an average of 55.6% female participants (range 2.98-81.7%).…”

Section: Participant Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was considerable variation in how health literacy was defined and measured (see Table 2). Six studies [36,40,42,43,45,47] did not provide a definition, two [31,34] gave a definition but no clear reference to identify it, and the remaining 14 studies referenced 10 different definitions (three studies [30,35,48] gave multiple definitions) with Ratzan and Parker [54] used in five studies [30,35,37,39,51] and Sorensen [6] cited in four studies [33,[48][49][50].…”

Section: Health Literacy Definitions and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Establishing the efficacy of interventions to improve health literacy and health behaviours: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The primary aim of this review was to establish whether health literacy interventions, in adults, are effective for improving health literacy. Two secondary aims assessed the impact of health literacy interventions on health behaviours and whether health literacy interventions have been conducted in cardiovascular patients. Methods: A systematic review (Prospero registration: CRD42018110772) with no start date running through until April 2020. Eligible studies were conducted in adults and included a pre/post measure of health literacy. Medline,

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participant Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Health Literacy Definitions and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Establishing the efficacy of interventions to improve health literacy and health behaviours: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer Care

Balitsky,

Rayner,

Britto

et al. 2024

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportancePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) come directly from the patient, without clinician interpretation, to provide a patient-centered perspective.ObjectiveTo understand the association of PROM integration into cancer care with patient-related, therapy-related, and health care utilization outcomes.Data SourcesSearches included MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations; Embase databases (OvidSP); PsychINFO; CENTRAL; and CINAHL from January 1, 2012 to September 26, 2022.Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled adult patients (ages 18 years and older) with active cancer receiving anticancer therapy using a PROM as an intervention.Data Extraction and SynthesisPairs of review authors, using prepiloted forms, independently extracted trial characteristics, disease characteristics, and intervention details. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was followed. Random-effects analyses were conducted.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOverall mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, and hospital utilization outcomes.ResultsFrom 1996 to 2022, 45 RCTs including 13 661 participants addressed the association of PROMs with outcomes considered important to patients. The addition of a PROM likely reduced the risk of overall mortality (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; moderate certainty), improved HRQoL (range 0-100) at 12 weeks (mean difference [MD], 2.45; 95% CI, 0.42-4.48; moderate certainty). Improvements of HRQoL at 24 weeks were not significant (MD, 1.87; 95% CI, −1.21 to 4.96; low certainty). There was no association between the addition of a PROM and HRQoL at 48 weeks. The addition of a PROM was not associated with reduced ED visits (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02; low certainty) or hospital admissions (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.02; low certainty).Conclusion and RelevanceThe findings of this study suggest that the integration of PROMs into cancer care may improve overall survival and quality of life.

show abstract

The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in the Improvement of Healthcare Delivery and Service

Aiyegbusi

Hughes

Calvert

2022

Handbook of Quality of Life in Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of a Smartphone Application as a Support Tool for Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cited by 48 publications

References 27 publications

Establishing the efficacy of interventions to improve health literacy and health behaviours: a systematic review

Establishing the efficacy of interventions to improve health literacy and health behaviours: a systematic review

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer Care

The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in the Improvement of Healthcare Delivery and Service

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About