INTRODUCTION: New media technologies (computers, mobile phones and the internet) have the potential to transform the healthcare information needs of patients with breast disease (Ferlay et al. in Eur J Cancer 49:1374-1403, 2013). However, patients' current level of use and their willingness to accept new media for education and communication remain unknown. METHODS: This was a single-centre clinic-based prospective cross-sectional study. A previously developed instrument was modified, validated and tested on patients attending a symptomatic breast clinic. RESULTS: The instrument was evaluated on 200 symptomatic breast patients. The commonest outlets for education were staff (95 %), leaflets (69 %) and websites (59 %). Websites are more likely to be consulted by younger patients (<47 years), and patients who were working, students or homemakers (p < 0.05). Patients rated usefulness of information media in this order: (1) print, (2) phone, (3) website, (4) email, (5) text and (6) apps. Patients who were new to the clinic were more likely to find text messaging and emailing useful (n < 0.05). Younger patients (<47 years) are more likely to find text messages, apps, websites and email useful (p < 0.05). Urban patients are more likely to find websites and email useful (p < 0.05). Patients with higher education were more likely to favour apps, websites and email (p < 0.05). Smartphone owners were significantly more likely to rate text messaging, apps, websites and email as useful media (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that new media technology use among breast patients is expanding as expected along generational trends. As such its' further integration into healthcare systems can potentially ameliorate patient education and communication.
INTRODUCTION: New media technologies (computers, mobile phones and the internet) have the potential to transform the healthcare information needs of patients with breast disease (Ferlay et al. in Eur J Cancer 49:1374-1403, 2013). However, patients' current level of use and their willingness to accept new media for education and communication remain unknown. METHODS: This was a single-centre clinic-based prospective cross-sectional study. A previously developed instrument was modified, validated and tested on patients attending a symptomatic breast clinic. RESULTS: The instrument was evaluated on 200 symptomatic breast patients. The commonest outlets for education were staff (95 %), leaflets (69 %) and websites (59 %). Websites are more likely to be consulted by younger patients (<47 years), and patients who were working, students or homemakers (p < 0.05). Patients rated usefulness of information media in this order: (1) print, (2) phone, (3) website, (4) email, (5) text and (6) apps. Patients who were new to the clinic were more likely to find text messaging and emailing useful (n < 0.05). Younger patients (<47 years) are more likely to find text messages, apps, websites and email useful (p < 0.05). Urban patients are more likely to find websites and email useful (p < 0.05). Patients with higher education were more likely to favour apps, websites and email (p < 0.05). Smartphone owners were significantly more likely to rate text messaging, apps, websites and email as useful media (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that new media technology use among breast patients is expanding as expected along generational trends. As such its' further integration into healthcare systems can potentially ameliorate patient education and communication.
Authors: Seamus M McHugh; Mark Corrigan; Nora Morney; Athar Sheikh; Elaine Lehane; Arnold D K Hill Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: E Dawn Wietfeldt; Imran Hassan; Angela Johnson; Catherine Veeder; Maggie Boehler; Gary L Dunnington; Jan Rakinic Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Matthew C Walsh; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Tracy A Schroepfer; Douglas J Reding; Bruce Campbell; Mary L Foote; Stephanie Kaufman; Morgan Barrett; Patrick L Remington; James F Cleary Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2010-06
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Yihang Liu; Jennifer L Malin; Allison L Diamant; Amardeep Thind; Rose C Maly Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-12-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Westyn Branch-Elliman; Grace M Lee; Toni H Golen; Howard S Gold; Linda M Baldini; Sharon B Wright Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Margaret Galloway; Dianne L Marsden; Robin Callister; Michael Nilsson; Kirk I Erickson; Coralie English Journal: Int J Telerehabil Date: 2019-12-12