ArticleWorld journal of surgery2015
Validation and Assessment of a Technology Familiarity Score in Patients Attending a Symptomatic Breast Clinic.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mobilizing Breast Cancer Prevention Research Through Smartphone Apps: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Frontiers in public health · 2019Pooled it
- The Preferences of Patients With Cancer Regarding Apps to Help Meet Their Illness-Related Information Needs: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- The Feasibility of a Telehealth Exercise Program Aimed at Increasing Cardiorespiratory Fitness for People After Stroke.International journal of telerehabilitation · 2019Article
- Use of Mobile Devices to Help Cancer Patients Meet Their Information Needs in Non-Inpatient Settings: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Review
- Integration of advances in social media and mHealth technology are pivotal to successful cancer prevention and control.mHealth · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNew 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThe 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).
conclusionThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26178658What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.