Trial reportJournal of health communication2017
How Cancer Patients Use and Benefit from an Interactive Cancer Communication System.
Trial report in Journal of health communication, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging Telehealth for the Management of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Mobile Breast Cancer e-Support Program for Chinese Women With Breast Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy (Part 3): Secondary Data Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Telehealth Interventions Designed for Women: an Evidence Map.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the mounting evidence of efficacy of eHealth interventions, their mechanisms of action remain unknown. The current study analyzed patient log data as each patient engaged in an eHealth system called the Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System (CHESS) and reports on how patients engage with different combinations of eHealth services over time. Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (N = 443) were given access for 6 months to one of four different configurations of CHESS: (1) Information, (2) Information and Support, (3) Information, Support, and Coaching (Full CHESS), and (4) Full CHESS and Mentor. Besides a baseline survey, three follow-up posttests were administered. Action log data on how patients engaged with the CHESS were also collected and merged with surveys to examine how patients benefit during the cancer experience. The findings suggest that usage patterns were not competitive, implying that cancer patients' access to more complex tools generates more use with their time spreading out over the diverse services. Despite overall decline in usage rates, it was less severe in Full CHESS and Mentor condition, suggesting that communication functions drive long-term engagement with the system. Notably, the strongest relation between use and cancer information competence appeared late in the follow-up period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.