| Literature DB >> 35954388 |
Laura Ciria-Suarez1, Laura Costas2,3, Aida Flix-Valle1,4,5, Maria Serra-Blasco1,6, Joan C Medina1,5,7, Cristian Ochoa-Arnedo1,4,5.
Abstract
Health education and psychosocial interventions prevent emotional distress, and the latter has been shown to have an impact on survival. In turn, digital health education interventions may help promote equity by reaching a higher number of cancer patients, both because they avoid journeys to the hospital, by and having a better efficiency. A total of 234 women recently diagnosed with breast cancer in a comprehensive cancer center used the digital ecosystem ICOnnecta't from March 2019 to March 2021. ICOnnecta't consists of four care levels, provided to patients according to their level of distress. The second level of this intervention consists of an educational campus, which was analyzed to track users' interests and their information-seeking behavior. Overall, 99 out of 234 women (42.3%) used the educational campus. There were no significant differences in sociodemographic and clinical variables between the campus users and non-users. Among users, the median number of resources utilized per user was four (interquartile range: 2-9). Emotional and medical resources were the contents most frequently viewed and the audiovisual format the most consulted (p < 0.01). Resources were used mainly within the first three months from enrolment. Users who were guided to visit the virtual campus were more active than spontaneous users. Offering an early holistic health educational platform inside a digital cancer ecosystem, with health professionals involved, can reach more patients, promoting equity in the access of cancer information and prevention, from the very beginning of the disease.Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer; cancer survivors; educational strategy; internet-based intervention; psychosocial intervention; stepped-care
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954388 PMCID: PMC9367518 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14153724
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Description of participants.
| Non-Users( | Users( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
|
| 0.116 | |||
|
| 38(28.1) | 34(34.3) | ||
|
| 44(32.6) | 39(39.4) | ||
|
| 53(39.3) | 26(26.3) | ||
|
| 0.107 | |||
|
| 97(71.9) | 80(80.8) | ||
|
| 15(11.1) | 4(4.0) | ||
|
| 8(5.9) | 8(8.1) | ||
|
| 5(3.7) | 1(1.0) | ||
|
| 10(7.4) | 6(6.1) | ||
|
| 0.182 | |||
|
| 37(27.4) | 33(33.3) | ||
|
| 51(37.8) | 42(42.4) | ||
|
| 3(2.2) | 0(0.0) | ||
|
| 13(9.6) | 4(4.0) | ||
|
| 20(14.8) | 11(11.1) | ||
|
| 11(8.1) | 9(9.1) | ||
|
| 0.573 | |||
|
| 80(59.3) | 54(54.5) | ||
|
| 54(40.0) | 43(43.4) | ||
|
| 1(0.7) | 2(2.0) | ||
|
| 0.370 | |||
|
| 68(50.4) | 44(44.4) | ||
|
| 67(49.6) | 55(55.6) | ||
* Chi squared, calculated without missing values, comparing participants and non-participants.
Utilization of resources by type.
| Number of Resources | Total Number of Utilizations | Median Proportion of Utilized Resources, among Users (IQR) | Median Number of Resources Utilized per User, among Participants (IQR) | Women Who Have Utilized One Resource or More | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % (among Users) | % (Overall) | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| 16 | 323 | 13% (6–31%) | <0.01 | 2 (1–5) | <0.01 | 85 | 85.9% | 36.3% |
|
| 16 | 144 | 0% (0–13%) | 0 (0–2) | 41 | 41.4% | 17.5% | ||
|
| 15 | 50 | 0% (0–0%) | 0 (0–0) | 23 | 23.2% | 9.8% | ||
|
| 15 | 195 | 7% (0–20%) | 1 (0–3) | 66 | 66.7% | 28.2% | ||
|
| 4 | 45 | 0% (0–25%) | 0 (0–1) | 31 | 31.3% | 13.2% | ||
|
| |||||||||
|
| 20 | 245 | 5% (0–15%) | <0.01 | 1 (0–3) | <0.01 | 67 | 67.7% | 28.6% |
|
| 17 | 275 | 6% (0–24%) | 1 (0–4) | 53 | 53.5% | 22.6% | ||
|
| 10 | 105 | 0% (0–10%) | 0 (0–1) | 41 | 41.4% | 17.5% | ||
|
| 8 | 49 | 0% (0–0%) | 0 (0–0) | 22 | 22.2% | 9.4% | ||
|
| 7 | 70 | 0% (0–14%) | 0 (0–1) | 41 | 41.4% | 17.5% | ||
|
| 4 | 13 | 0% (0–0%) | 0 (0–0) | 8 | 8.1% | 3.4% | ||
|
| 66 | 757 | 6% (3–14%) | 4 (2–9) | 99 | 100.0% | 42.3% | ||
* Non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, across type of format and content categories. IQR: Interquartile range.
Use of resources among users by type of use: guided use vs. spontaneous use.
| Number of Available Resources | Median Proportion of Utilized Resources, among Users (IQR) | Median Number of Resources Utilized per User, among Users (IQR) | Women Who Utilized One Resource or More | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Utilizations |
| % (among Subgroup | % | % | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| 16 | 125 | 13% (6–22%) | 0.053 | 2 (1–4) | 41 | 83.7% | 41.4% | 17.5% | |
|
| 16 | 40 | 0% (0–6%) | 0.256 | 0 (0–1) | 19 | 38.8% | 19.2% | 8.1% | |
|
| 15 | 16 | 0% (0–0%) | 0.783 | 0 (0–0) | 11 | 22.4% | 11.1% | 4.7% | |
|
| 15 | 68 | 7% (0–13%) | 0.035 | 1 (0–2) | 29 | 59.2% | 29.3% | 12.4% | |
|
| 4 | 9 | 0% (0–0%) | 0.001 | 0 (0–0) | 8 | 16.3% | 8.1% | 3.4% | |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| 20 | 83 | 5% (0–10%) | 0.033 | 1 (0–2) | 31 | 63.3% | 31.3% | 13.2% | |
|
| 17 | 104 | 0% (0–18%) | 0.096 | 0 (0–3) | 22 | 44.9% | 22.2% | 9.4% | |
|
| 10 | 30 | 0% (0–10%) | 0.076 | 0 (0–1) | 17 | 34.7% | 17.2% | 7.3% | |
|
| 8 | 12 | 0% (0–0%) | 0.048 | 0 (0–0) | 7 | 14.3% | 7.1% | 3.0% | |
|
| 7 | 25 | 0% (0–14%) | 0.170 | 0 (0–1) | 18 | 36.7% | 18.2% | 7.7% | |
|
| 4 | 4 | 0% (0–0%) | 0.450 | 0 (0–0) | 3 | 6.1% | 3.0% | 1.3% | |
|
| 66 | 258 | 5% (3–11%) | 0.026 | 3 (2–8) | 49 | 100.0% | 49.5% | 20.9% | |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| 16 | 198 | 19% (6–31%) | 3 (1–5) | 44 | 88.0% | 44.4% | 18.8% | ||
|
| 16 | 104 | 0% (0–13%) | 0 (0–2) | 22 | 44.0% | 22.2% | 9.4% | ||
|
| 15 | 34 | 0% (0–2%) | 0 (0–0) | 12 | 24.0% | 12.1% | 5.1% | ||
|
| 15 | 127 | 10% (0–20%) | 2 (0–3) | 37 | 74.0% | 37.4% | 15.8% | ||
|
| 4 | 36 | 0% (0–25%) | 0 (0–1) | 23 | 46.0% | 23.2% | 9.8% | ||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| 20 | 162 | 13% (0–20%) | 3 (0–4) | 36 | 72.0% | 36.4% | 15.4% | ||
|
| 17 | 171 | 9% (0–25%) | 2 (0–4) | 31 | 62.0% | 31.3% | 13.2% | ||
|
| 10 | 75 | 0% (0–20%) | 0 (0–2) | 24 | 48.0% | 24.2% | 10.3% | ||
|
| 8 | 37 | 0% (0–13%) | 0 (0–1) | 15 | 30.0% | 15.2% | 6.4% | ||
|
| 7 | 45 | 0% (0–18%) | 0 (0–1) | 23 | 46.0% | 23.2% | 9.8% | ||
|
| 4 | 9 | 0% (0–0%) | 0 (0–0) | 5 | 10.0% | 5.1% | 2.1% | ||
|
| 66 | 499 | 10% (3–15%) | 7 (2–10) | 50 | 100.0% | 50.5% | 21.4% | ||
* Non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, by guided use. IQR: Interquartile range.
Figure 1Utilization of resources over time.