J Graf1, E Simoes2, K Wißlicen3, L Rava3, C B Walter3, A Hartkopf3, L Keilmann4, A Taran3, S Wallwiener3, P Fasching5, S Y Brucker6, M Wallwiener4. 1. Department für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen; Forschungsinstitut für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen; Abteilung Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen. 2. Department für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen; Forschungsinstitut für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen; Stabsstelle Sozialmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen. 3. Department für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen. 4. Abteilung für Allgemeine Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg. 5. Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen. 6. Department für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen; Forschungsinstitut für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen.
Abstract
Introduction: Because of the often unfavorable prognosis, particularly for patients with metastases, health-related quality of life is extremely important for breast cancer patients. In recent years, data on patient-relevant endpoints is being increasingly collected electronically; however, knowledge on the acceptance and practicability of, and barriers to, this form of data collection remains limited. Material and Methods: A questionnaire was completed by 96 patients to determine to what extent existing computer skills, disease status, health-related quality of life and sociodemographic factors affect patients' potential willingness to use electronics methods of data collection (ePRO). Results: 52 of 96 (55 %) patients reported a priori that they could envisage using ePRO. Patients who a priori preferred a paper-based survey (pPRO) tended to be older (ePRO 53 years vs. pPRO 62 years; p = 0.0014) and typically had lower levels of education (p = 0.0002), were in poorer health (p = 0.0327) and had fewer computer skills (p = 0.0003). Conclusion: Barriers to the prospective use of ePRO were identified in older patients and patients with a lower quality of life. Given the appropriate conditions with regard to age, education and current health status, opportunities to participate should be provided to encourage patients' willingness to take part and ensure the validity of survey results. Focusing on ease of use of ePRO applications and making applications more patient-oriented and straightforward appears to be the way forward.
Introduction: Because of the often unfavorable prognosis, particularly for patients with metastases, health-related quality of life is extremely important for breast cancerpatients. In recent years, data on patient-relevant endpoints is being increasingly collected electronically; however, knowledge on the acceptance and practicability of, and barriers to, this form of data collection remains limited. Material and Methods: A questionnaire was completed by 96 patients to determine to what extent existing computer skills, disease status, health-related quality of life and sociodemographic factors affect patients' potential willingness to use electronics methods of data collection (ePRO). Results: 52 of 96 (55 %) patients reported a priori that they could envisage using ePRO. Patients who a priori preferred a paper-based survey (pPRO) tended to be older (ePRO 53 years vs. pPRO 62 years; p = 0.0014) and typically had lower levels of education (p = 0.0002), were in poorer health (p = 0.0327) and had fewer computer skills (p = 0.0003). Conclusion: Barriers to the prospective use of ePRO were identified in older patients and patients with a lower quality of life. Given the appropriate conditions with regard to age, education and current health status, opportunities to participate should be provided to encourage patients' willingness to take part and ensure the validity of survey results. Focusing on ease of use of ePRO applications and making applications more patient-oriented and straightforward appears to be the way forward.
Entities:
Keywords:
acceptance of technology-based surveys; breast cancer; metastatic setting; obstacles; patient-reported outcomes
Authors: Jürg Bernhard; Weixiu Luo; Karin Ribi; Marco Colleoni; Harold J Burstein; Carlo Tondini; Graziella Pinotti; Simon Spazzapan; Thomas Ruhstaller; Fabio Puglisi; Lorenzo Pavesi; Vani Parmar; Meredith M Regan; Olivia Pagani; Gini F Fleming; Prudence A Francis; Karen N Price; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch; Barbara A Walley Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Bevan H Ly; Nam P Nguyen; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Elisabetta Rapiti; Georges Vlastos Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Rita S Mehta; William E Barlow; Kathy S Albain; Ted A Vandenberg; Shaker R Dakhil; Nagendra R Tirumali; Danika L Lew; Daniel F Hayes; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Markus Wallwiener; Felix Heindl; Sara Y Brucker; Florin-Andrei Taran; Andreas Hartkopf; Friedrich Overkamp; Hans-Christian Kolberg; Peyman Hadji; Hans Tesch; Johannes Ettl; Michael P Lux; Claudia Rauh; Simon Blum; Naiba Nabieva; Tobias F Brodkorb; Cornelia Faschingbauer; Hanna Langemann; Carla Schulmeyer; Bernhard Volz; Matthias Rübner; Diana Lüftner; Volkmar Müller; Erik Belleville; Wolfgang Janni; Tanja N Fehm; Diethelm Wallwiener; Thomas Ganslandt; Matthias W Beckmann; Andreas Schneeweiss; Peter A Fasching; Paul Gass Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Andreas D Hartkopf; Joachim Graf; Elisabeth Simoes; Lucia Keilmann; Nina Sickenberger; Paul Gass; Diethelm Wallwiener; Lina Matthies; Florin-Andrei Taran; Michael P Lux; Stephanie Wallwiener; Eric Belleville; Christof Sohn; Peter A Fasching; Andreas Schneeweiss; Sara Y Brucker; Markus Wallwiener Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2017-08-07
Authors: Joachim Graf; Sara Y Brucker; Markus Wallwiener; Lina Matthies; Elisabeth Simoes; Lucia Keilmann; Andreas D Hartkopf; Alexander N Sokolov; Christina B Walter; Nina Sickenberger; Stephanie Wallwiener; Manuel Feisst; Paul Gass; Peter A Fasching; Michael P Lux; Diethelm Wallwiener; Florin-Andrei Taran; Joachim Rom; Andreas Schneeweiss Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Joachim Graf; Nina Sickenberger; Katharina Brusniak; Lina Maria Matthies; Thomas M Deutsch; Elisabeth Simoes; Claudia Plappert; Lucia Keilmann; Andreas Hartkopf; Christina Barbara Walter; Markus Hahn; Tobias Engler; Stephanie Wallwiener; Florian Schuetz; Peter A Fasching; Andreas Schneeweiss; Sara Yvonne Brucker; Markus Wallwiener Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Shelley S Tworoger; Brian D Gonzalez; Cassandra A Hathaway; Melody N Chavez; Mika Kadono; Dana Ketcher; Dana E Rollison; Erin M Siegel; Anita R Peoples; Cornelia M Ulrich; Frank J Penedo Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2021-08-06
Authors: Lina Maria Matthies; Florin-Andrei Taran; Joachim Graf; Markus Wallwiener; Lucia Keilmann; Andreas Schneeweiss; Elisabeth Simoes; Andreas D Hartkopf; Alexander N Sokolov; Christina B Walter; Nina Sickenberger; Stephanie Wallwiener; Manuel Feisst; Paul Gass; Michael P Lux; Florian Schuetz; Peter A Fasching; Christof Sohn; Sara Y Brucker Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Johannes Schobel; Madeleine Volz; Katharina Hörner; Peter Kuhn; Franz Jobst; Julian D Schwab; Nensi Ikonomi; Silke D Werle; Axel Fürstberger; Klaus Hoenig; Hans A Kestler Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 3.390