Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35078438›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2022

The Patient Navigator: Can a systematically developed online health information tool improve patient participation and outcomes related to the consultation in older patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer?

Melanie de Looper, Ellen M A Smets, Barbara C Schouten, Sifra Bolle, Eric H J Belgers, Eric H Eddes, Jeroen W A Leijtens, Julia C M van Weert

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Melanie de LooperAmsterdam School of Communication Research/ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, 1018, Amsterdam, WV, Netherlands. m.delooper@uva.nl.
Ellen M A SmetsDepartment of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Barbara C SchoutenAmsterdam School of Communication Research/ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, 1018, Amsterdam, WV, Netherlands.
Sifra BolleCentre for Health and Society, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Eric H J BelgersZuyderland Medical Center, Sittard, Geleen, The Netherlands.
Eric H EddesDepartment of Surgery, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Jeroen W A LeijtensLaurentius Hospital, Roermond, The Netherlands.
Julia C M van WeertAmsterdam School of Communication Research/ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, 1018, Amsterdam, WV, Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLDutch Institute for Clinical Auditing · NLLaurentius Ziekenhuis · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder cancer patients may search for health information online to prepare for their consultations. However, seeking information online can have negative effects, for instance increased anxiety due to finding incorrect or unclear information. In addition, existing online cancer information is not necessarily adapted to the needs of older patients, even though cancer is a disease often found in older individuals.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically develop, implement and evaluate an online health information tool for older cancer patients, the Patient Navigator, providing information that complements the consultation with healthcare providers.

methodFor the development and evaluation of the Patient Navigator, the four phases of the MRC framework were used. In the first and second phase the Patient Navigator was developed and pilot tested based on previous research and sub-studies. During the third phase the Patient Navigator was implemented in four Dutch hospitals. In the last phase, a pilot RCT was conducted to evaluate the Patient Navigator in terms of usage (observational tracking data), user experience (self-reported satisfaction, involvement, cognitive load, active control, perceived relevance of the tool), patient participation (observational data during consultation), and patient outcomes related to the consultation (questionnaire data regarding anxiety, satisfaction, and information recall). Recently diagnosed colorectal cancer patients (N = 45) were randomly assigned to the control condition (usual care) or the experimental condition (usual care + Patient Navigator).

resultsThe Patient Navigator was well used and evaluated positively. Patients who received the Patient Navigator contributed less during the consultation by using less words than patients in the control condition and experienced less anxiety two days after the consultation than patients in the control condition.

conclusionSince the Patient Navigator was evaluated positively and decreased anxiety after the consultation, this tool is potentially a valuable addition to the consultation for patients. Usage of the Patient Navigator resulted in patients using less words during consultations, without impairing patients' satisfaction, possibly because information needs might be fulfilled by usage of the Patient Navigator. This could create the possibility to personalize communication during consultations and respond to other patient needs.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsOnline SystemsAgedConsumer Health InformationFemaleHumansMalePatient NavigationPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionReferral and Consultationanxietyonline health informationonline patient toolpatient participationrecallsatisfaction

Identifiers

PMID35078438
PMCPMC8788912
OpenAlexW4207018926

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.