PURPOSE: Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are in need of specialized information about late effects of treatment. In the current study, we assessed the perceived usability and satisfaction with the content of a national website with information on late effects and analyzed possible determinants related to website usability and content satisfaction. METHODS: CCS and their parents were contacted through our local follow-up program and via online media to complete an online questionnaire regarding their baseline characteristics, medical decision style, and the usability and content of the website. Usability was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS), a validated questionnaire resulting in a score from 0 to 100. For the content rating, we constructed a six-item scale resulting in a score from 1 to 5 (Cronbach's α, 0.83). Comments were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Fifty-five survivors and forty-three parents of survivors completed the questionnaire. Median age of respondents was 41 years (range, 17-58). Respondents rated the website's usability with a mean SUS score of 72.5 (95 % CI, 69.2-74.9). The mean content rating was 3.7 (95 % CI, 3.5-3.8). No determinants were significantly related to the perceived usability or content satisfaction in multivariate analyses. Qualitative analysis revealed respondents' preference for more detailed and even scientific information on late effects. CONCLUSION: Respondents were satisfied with the usability and the contents of a website that targeted at their information needs. As knowledge about late effects is still limited among survivors, a website can be a valuable resource to improve their knowledge, promote healthy behavior, and in the end, improve their quality of life.
PURPOSE: Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are in need of specialized information about late effects of treatment. In the current study, we assessed the perceived usability and satisfaction with the content of a national website with information on late effects and analyzed possible determinants related to website usability and content satisfaction. METHODS: CCS and their parents were contacted through our local follow-up program and via online media to complete an online questionnaire regarding their baseline characteristics, medical decision style, and the usability and content of the website. Usability was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS), a validated questionnaire resulting in a score from 0 to 100. For the content rating, we constructed a six-item scale resulting in a score from 1 to 5 (Cronbach's α, 0.83). Comments were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Fifty-five survivors and forty-three parents of survivors completed the questionnaire. Median age of respondents was 41 years (range, 17-58). Respondents rated the website's usability with a mean SUS score of 72.5 (95 % CI, 69.2-74.9). The mean content rating was 3.7 (95 % CI, 3.5-3.8). No determinants were significantly related to the perceived usability or content satisfaction in multivariate analyses. Qualitative analysis revealed respondents' preference for more detailed and even scientific information on late effects. CONCLUSION: Respondents were satisfied with the usability and the contents of a website that targeted at their information needs. As knowledge about late effects is still limited among survivors, a website can be a valuable resource to improve their knowledge, promote healthy behavior, and in the end, improve their quality of life.
Authors: Maud M Geenen; Mathilde C Cardous-Ubbink; Leontien C M Kremer; Cor van den Bos; Helena J H van der Pal; Richard C Heinen; Monique W M Jaspers; Caro C E Koning; Foppe Oldenburger; Nelia E Langeveld; Augustinus A M Hart; Piet J M Bakker; Huib N Caron; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rik Crutzen; Jascha de Nooijer; Wendy Brouwer; Anke Oenema; Johannes Brug; Nanne K de Vries Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: S Molenaar; M A Sprangers; E J Rutgers; E J Luiten; J Mulder; P M Bossuyt; J J van Everdingen; P Oosterveld; H C de Haes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Siri L Hess; Inga M Jóhannsdóttir; Hanne Hamre; Cecilie E Kiserud; Jon H Loge; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Gemma Gatta; Giulia Zigon; Riccardo Capocaccia; Jan Willem Coebergh; Emmanuel Desandes; Peter Kaatsch; Guido Pastore; Rafael Peris-Bonet; Charles A Stiller Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Sebastiaan L Knijnenburg; Leontien C Kremer; Cor van den Bos; Katja I Braam; Monique W M Jaspers Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Wendy Brouwer; Anke Oenema; Rik Crutzen; Jascha de Nooijer; Nanne K de Vries; Johannes Brug Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2008-04-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Patrizia Gnagnarella; Alessandro Maria Misotti; Luigi Santoro; Demosthenes Akoumianakis; Laura Del Campo; Francesco De Lorenzo; Claudio Lombardo; Giannis Milolidakis; Richard Sullivan; John Gordon McVie Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Anneli V Mellblom; Live Korsvold; Arnstein Finset; Jon Loge; Ellen Ruud; Hanne C Lie Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Rebekah H Nagler; Elaine Puleo; Kim Sprunck-Harrild; K Viswanath; Karen M Emmons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lori Ann Post; Federico E Vaca; Brian J Biroscak; James Dziura; Cynthia Brandt; Steven L Bernstein; Richard Taylor; Liudvikas Jagminas; Gail D'Onofrio Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 4.773