Sheng-Miauh Huang1, Ling-Ming Tseng2,3, Ming-Jeng Yang4, Aria Chang4, Pei-Ju Lien2, Yvonne Hsiung5. 1. Department of Nursing, Mackay Medical College, No. 46, Section 3, Zhongzheng Road, New Taipei City 252, Sanzhi District, Taiwan. r910862@yahoo.com.tw. 2. Department of Surgery, Comprehensive Breast Health Center, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, 112, Taiwan. 4. Institute of Geriatric Welfare Technology & Science, Mackay Medical College, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 5. Department of Nursing, Mackay Medical College, No. 46, Section 3, Zhongzheng Road, New Taipei City 252, Sanzhi District, Taiwan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop electronic systems for oncofertility support, and to examine the comprehensibility, feasibility, usability, and effects on social support and preparation for decision-making. METHODS: The study steps were guided, tested, and utilized to (a) identify the requirements of a patient, (b) guide the development of support interventions, and (c) evaluate the quality of web-based oncofertility support. Alpha testing and beta testing were used to ensure the quality of the web-based oncofertility support tool. The effectiveness was evaluated using the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale and Social Support Questionnaire. RESULTS: At the alpha testing phase, the mean (± standard deviation) values of the comprehensibility and usability for reproductive-age women with breast cancer were 4.24 (± 0.47) and 4.42 (± 0.57); and the mean values of the acceptability and usability for healthcare providers were 4.04 (± 0.67) and 3.99 (± 0.66), respectively. At the beta testing phase, the mean values of the feasibility for patients and healthcare providers were 3.93 (± 0.67) and 4.17 (± 0.78), respectively. The corresponding mean Preparation for Decision-Making Scale scores were 3.78 ± 0.82 and 4.11 ± 0.93, respectively. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that the informational and instrumental support scores improved significantly compared with the pre-test data (informational support: 8.94 ± 3.28 vs. 10.06 ± 1.91, p < 0.01; instrumental support: 7.44 ± 2.90 vs. 8.75 ± 2.57, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The oncofertility support website demonstrated acceptable comprehensibility, feasibility, and usability, in addition to informational and instrumental support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05100498, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05100498.
PURPOSE: To develop electronic systems for oncofertility support, and to examine the comprehensibility, feasibility, usability, and effects on social support and preparation for decision-making. METHODS: The study steps were guided, tested, and utilized to (a) identify the requirements of a patient, (b) guide the development of support interventions, and (c) evaluate the quality of web-based oncofertility support. Alpha testing and beta testing were used to ensure the quality of the web-based oncofertility support tool. The effectiveness was evaluated using the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale and Social Support Questionnaire. RESULTS: At the alpha testing phase, the mean (± standard deviation) values of the comprehensibility and usability for reproductive-age women with breast cancer were 4.24 (± 0.47) and 4.42 (± 0.57); and the mean values of the acceptability and usability for healthcare providers were 4.04 (± 0.67) and 3.99 (± 0.66), respectively. At the beta testing phase, the mean values of the feasibility for patients and healthcare providers were 3.93 (± 0.67) and 4.17 (± 0.78), respectively. The corresponding mean Preparation for Decision-Making Scale scores were 3.78 ± 0.82 and 4.11 ± 0.93, respectively. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that the informational and instrumental support scores improved significantly compared with the pre-test data (informational support: 8.94 ± 3.28 vs. 10.06 ± 1.91, p < 0.01; instrumental support: 7.44 ± 2.90 vs. 8.75 ± 2.57, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The oncofertility support website demonstrated acceptable comprehensibility, feasibility, and usability, in addition to informational and instrumental support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05100498, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05100498.
Authors: Maria Martinez; Susana Rabadan; Javier Domingo; Ana Cobo; Antonio Pellicer; Juan A Garcia-Velasco Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Mirjam M Garvelink; Moniek M ter Kuile; Maarten J Fischer; Leoni A Louwé; Carina G J M Hilders; Judith R Kroep; Anne M Stiggelbout Journal: J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.949
Authors: Matteo Lambertini; Halle C F Moore; Robert C F Leonard; Sibylle Loibl; Pamela Munster; Marco Bruzzone; Luca Boni; Joseph M Unger; Richard A Anderson; Keyur Mehta; Susan Minton; Francesca Poggio; Kathy S Albain; Douglas J A Adamson; Bernd Gerber; Amy Cripps; Gianfilippo Bertelli; Sabine Seiler; Marcello Ceppi; Ann H Partridge; Lucia Del Mastro Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544