Heleen C Melissant1,2, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw1,2,3, Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte4, Inge R Konings2,5, Pim Cuijpers1, Cornelia F Van Uden-Kraan1,2. 1. a Department of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , Amsterdam , The Netherlands. 2. b Cancer Center Amsterdam (CCA) , VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , The Netherlands. 3. c Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , The Netherlands. 4. d Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics , VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , The Netherlands. 5. e Department of Medical Oncology , VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors have to deal with symptoms related to cancer and its treatment. In Oncokompas, cancer survivors monitor their quality of life by completing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), followed by personalized feedback, self-care advice, and supportive care options to stimulate patient activation. The aim of this study was to investigate feasibility and pretest-posttest differences of Oncokompas including a newly developed breast cancer (BC) module among BC survivors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A pretest-posttest design was used. Feasibility was investigated by means of adoption, usage, and satisfaction rates. Several socio-demographic and clinical factors, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were explored that might be associated with patient satisfaction. Barriers and facilitators of Oncokompas feasibility were investigated by evaluating nurse consultation reports. Differences in patient activation (Patient Activation Measure) and patient-physician interaction (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions) before and after Oncokompas use were investigated. RESULTS: In total, 101 BC survivors participated. Oncokompas had an adoption rate of 75%, a usage rate of 75-84%, a mean satisfaction score of 6.9 (range 0-10) and a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of -36 (range -100-100) (N = 68). The BC module had a mean satisfaction score of 7.6. BC survivors who received surgery including chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were significantly more satisfied with Oncokompas than BC survivors with surgery alone (p = .013). Six facilitators and 10 barriers of Oncokompas feasibility were identified. After using Oncokompas, BC survivors scored significantly higher on patient activation (p = .007; r = .24), but not on patient-physician interaction (p = .75). CONCLUSION: Oncokompas including a BC module is considered feasible, but needs further optimization to increase user satisfaction. This study shows the value of tailoring eHealth applications for cancer survivors to their specific tumor type. Oncokompas including the BC module seems to improve patient activation among BC survivors.
BACKGROUND:Cancer survivors have to deal with symptoms related to cancer and its treatment. In Oncokompas, cancer survivors monitor their quality of life by completing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), followed by personalized feedback, self-care advice, and supportive care options to stimulate patient activation. The aim of this study was to investigate feasibility and pretest-posttest differences of Oncokompas including a newly developed breast cancer (BC) module among BC survivors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A pretest-posttest design was used. Feasibility was investigated by means of adoption, usage, and satisfaction rates. Several socio-demographic and clinical factors, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were explored that might be associated with patient satisfaction. Barriers and facilitators of Oncokompas feasibility were investigated by evaluating nurse consultation reports. Differences in patient activation (Patient Activation Measure) and patient-physician interaction (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions) before and after Oncokompas use were investigated. RESULTS: In total, 101 BC survivors participated. Oncokompas had an adoption rate of 75%, a usage rate of 75-84%, a mean satisfaction score of 6.9 (range 0-10) and a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of -36 (range -100-100) (N = 68). The BC module had a mean satisfaction score of 7.6. BC survivors who received surgery including chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were significantly more satisfied with Oncokompas than BC survivors with surgery alone (p = .013). Six facilitators and 10 barriers of Oncokompas feasibility were identified. After using Oncokompas, BC survivors scored significantly higher on patient activation (p = .007; r = .24), but not on patient-physician interaction (p = .75). CONCLUSION: Oncokompas including a BC module is considered feasible, but needs further optimization to increase user satisfaction. This study shows the value of tailoring eHealth applications for cancer survivors to their specific tumor type. Oncokompas including the BC module seems to improve patient activation among BC survivors.
Authors: Natasha Ansari; Christina M Wilson; Mallorie B Heneghan; Kathie Supiano; Kathi Mooney Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Liza van Deursen; Anke Versluis; Rosalie van der Vaart; Lucille Standaar; Jeroen Struijs; Niels Chavannes; Jiska J Aardoom Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2022-06-14
Authors: Anouk S Schuit; Karen Holtmaat; Nienke Hooghiemstra; Femke Jansen; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Veerle M H Coupé; Myra E van Linde; Annemarie Becker-Commissaris; Jaap C Reijneveld; Josée M Zijlstra; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Simone E J Eerenstein; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Anouk S Schuit; Valesca van Zwieten; Karen Holtmaat; Pim Cuijpers; Simone E J Eerenstein; C René Leemans; Marije R Vergeer; Jens Voortman; Hakki Karagozoglu; Stijn van Weert; Mira Korte; Ruud Frambach; Margot Fleuren; Jan-Jaap Hendrickx; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: M Aapro; P Bossi; A Dasari; L Fallowfield; P Gascón; M Geller; K Jordan; J Kim; K Martin; S Porzig Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 3.603