Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166381›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

Access to internet, smartphone usage, and acceptability of mobile health technology among cancer patients.

Rashmika Potdar, Arun Thomas, Matthew DiMeglio, Kamran Mohiuddin, Djeneba Audrey Djibo, Krzysztof Laudanski, Claudia M Dourado, John Charles Leighton, Jean G Ford

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Toward Patient-Centered AI Fact Labels: Leveraging Extrinsic Trust Cues.DIS. Designing Interactive Systems (Conference) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Promise and Perils of Large Language Models for Cancer Survivorship and Supportive Care.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rashmika PotdarDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Arun ThomasDepartment of Internal Medicine, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Matthew DiMeglioPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. matthewdi@pcom.edu.
Kamran MohiuddinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Djeneba Audrey DjiboDepartment of Research, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Krzysztof LaudanskiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Claudia M DouradoDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
John Charles LeightonDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jean G FordDepartment of Internal Medicine, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Einstein Healthcare Network · USGeisinger Medical Center · USHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies to augment patient care enables providers to communicate remotely with patients enhancing the quality of care and patient engagement. Few studies evaluated predictive factors of its acceptance and subsequent implementation, especially in medically underserved populations.

methodsA cross-sectional study of 151 cancer patients was conducted at an academic medical center in the USA. A trained interviewer performed structured interviews regarding the barriers and facilitators of patients' current and desired use of mHealth technology for healthcare services.

resultsOf the 151 participants, 35.8% were male and ages ranged from 21 to 104 years. 73.5% of participants currently have daily access to internet, and 68.2% currently own a smartphone capable of displaying mobile applications. Among all participants, acceptability of a daily mHealth application was significantly higher in patients with a college-level degree (OR 2.78, CI

conclusionThe study suggests that factors such as age, educational achievement, and access to internet are significant predictors of acceptability of a mHealth application among cancer patients. Healthcare organizations should consider these factors when launching patient engagement platforms.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsNeoplasmsSmartphoneTelemedicineYoung AdultCancerHealth disparitiesmHealthMobile applicationsMobile health

Identifiers

PMID32166381
OpenAlexW3011799915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.