Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29463492›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Ecuadorian Cancer Patients' Preference for Information and Communication Technologies: Cross-Sectional Study.

Ivan Cherrez Ojeda, Emanuel Vanegas, Michell Torres, Juan Carlos Calderón, Erick Calero, Annia Cherrez, Miguel Felix, Valeria Mata, Sofia Cherrez, Daniel Simancas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ivan Cherrez Ojeda *Universidad Especialidades Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-1610-239X
Emanuel Vanegas *Universidad Especialidades Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-8314-5595
Michell Torres *Respiralab Research Group, Guayaquil, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-9751-4264
Juan Carlos Calderón *Universidad Especialidades Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0003-3889-9309
Erick Calero *Universidad Especialidades Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-7646-3074
Annia Cherrez *Respiralab Research Group, Guayaquil, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-1597-9915
Miguel Felix *Universidad Especialidades Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-2243-3646
Valeria Mata *Respiralab Research Group, Guayaquil, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0003-3089-6306
Sofia Cherrez *Respiralab Research Group, Guayaquil, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-0845-7967
Daniel Simancas *Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-3641-1501

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe instantaneous spread of information, low costs, and broad availability of information and communication technologies (ICTs) make them an attractive platform for managing care, patient communication, and medical interventions in cancer treatment. There is little information available in Latin America about the level of usage of ICTs for and by cancer patients. Our study attempts to fill this gap.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the level of ICT use and patterns of preferences among cancer patients.

methodsWe conducted an anonymous cross-sectional survey study in 500 Ecuadorian cancer patients. This questionnaire consisted of 22 items about demographic and clinical data, together with the preferences of people who use ICTs. Chi-square, crude, and adjusted logistic regressions were performed.

resultsOf the total, 43.2% (216/500) of participants reported that they had access to the Internet, and 25.4% (127/500) reported that they neither owned a cell phone nor did they have access to the Internet. The Internet constituted the highest usage rate as a source of information about malignant diseases (74.3%, 162/218) regardless of age (P<.001). With regard to the preferences on how patients would like to use ICTs to receive information about diseases, WhatsApp (66.5%, 145/218) and short message service (SMS) text messaging (61.0%, 133/218) were widely reported as interesting communication channels. Similarly, WhatsApp (72.0%, 157/218) followed by SMS (63.8%, 139/218) were reported as the preferred ICTs through which patients would like to ask physicians about diseases. Adjusted regression analysis showed that patients aged between 40 and 64 years were more likely to be interested in receiving information through SMS (odds ratio, OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.92-13.32), as well as for asking questions to physicians through this same media (OR 9.78, CI 3.45-27.67) than the oldest group.

conclusionsWhatsApp, SMS, and email are effective and widely used ICTs that can promote communication between cancer patients and physicians. According to age range, new ICTs such as Facebook are still emerging. Future studies should investigate how to develop and promote ICT-based resources more effectively to engage the outcomes of cancer patients. The widespread use of ICTs narrows the gap between cancer patients with restricted socioeconomic conditions and those with wealth and easily available technological means, thereby opening up new possibilities in low-income countries.

Indexed as

CommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesEcuadorFemaleHumansInformation TechnologyInternetMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient PreferenceSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicinecancermHealthsocial mediatelemedicineWeb 2.0

Identifiers

PMID29463492
PMCPMC5840480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.