ArticleBMJ open2020
Patients' experiences of using an e-Health tool for self-management support after prostate cancer surgery: a deductive interview study explained through the FITT framework.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Design and implementation of mHealth applications for older people with cancer: A scoping review.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Review
- Sociotechnical Adaptation of Telerehabilitation in Rehabilitation Practice: Survey Among Rehabilitation Professionals.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- A digital and nurse-led support intervention, first year after prostate cancer treatment: a single-arm feasibility study in a Swedish primary care setting.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Article
- Effects of Web-Based and Mobile Self-Care Support in Addition to Standard Care in Patients After Radical Prostatectomy: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR cancer · 2023Article
- Recommendations for the Design and Delivery of Transitions-Focused Digital Health Interventions: Rapid Review.JMIR aging · 2022Review
- [Apps and web-based interventions for prostate cancer follow-up-a scoping review].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate patients' experiences of using a web-based application, especially its usability as support for self-care activities after prostate cancer surgery.
designA deductive content analysis was used, stemming from the Fit between Individuals, Task and Technology (FITT) framework.
settingOne surgical department in south of Sweden between October 2015 and April 2016 and between September 2017 and July 2018.
participantsFifteen men who had undergone radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
resultsBy organising data in accordance with the FITT model, three main categories with ten subcategories were identified. Patients gave feedback on functions that suited them and their needs, as well as potential adjustments and improvements. Patients experienced that ePATH gave them easy access to reliable information regarding their rehabilitation. Directed information about ePATH at enrolment was seen as important. ePATH was perceived to have a logical structure that was easy to follow. However, when the structure was unclear, patients became less motivated to use a function.
conclusionsPatients experienced ePATH as satisfactorily user-friendly and useful as a complementary self-management support after prostate cancer surgery, especially when the information and tasks were tailored to their preferences and the system design features supported individual autonomy.
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.