Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38015268›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Supportive Digital Health Service During Cancer Chemotherapy: Single-Arm Before-and-After Feasibility Study.

Nanna Fridriksdottir, Brynja Ingadottir, Kristin Skuladottir, Sigridur Zoëga, Sigridur Gunnarsdottir

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Feasibility and Acceptability of mPallCareJMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Patient health engagement as a predictor of symptom outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nanna Fridriksdottir *Landspitali- The National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4486-5543
Brynja Ingadottir *Landspitali- The National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0743-8200
Kristin Skuladottir *Landspitali- The National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9342-8431
Sigridur Zoëga *Landspitali- The National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5289-6166
Sigridur Gunnarsdottir *Landspitali- The National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7579-8668
University of Iceland · IS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital supportive cancer care is recommended to improve patient outcomes. A portal was designed and embedded within the electronic medical record and public health portal of Iceland, consisting of symptom and needs monitoring, educational material, and messaging.

objectiveThis study aims to assess (1) portal feasibility (adoption, engagement, usability, and acceptability), (2) potential predictors of usability and acceptability, and (3) the potential impact of the portal on patient-reported outcomes.

methodsThis was a single-arm, before-and-after feasibility study at a university hospital among patients with cancer who were undergoing chemotherapy. Participation included filling out the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised (ESASr) weekly and the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL) 3 times; reading educational material and messaging; and completing study questionnaires. Clinical and portal engagement data were collected from medical records. Data from patients were collected electronically at baseline and 7 to 10 days after the third chemotherapy round. Usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (score 0-100), and acceptability was assessed using a 35-item survey (score 1-5). Patient-reported outcome measures included ESASr and DT&PL; a single-item scale for quality of life, family support, and quality of care; and multi-item scales for health literacy (Brief Health Literacy Screener), health engagement (Patient Health Engagement Scale), self-care self-efficacy (Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale), symptom interference (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory), knowledge expectations (Hospital Patients' Knowledge Expectations), and received knowledge (Hospital Patients' Received Knowledge). Health care professionals were interviewed regarding portal feasibility.

resultsThe portal adoption rate was 72% (103/143), and the portal use rate was 76.7% (79/103) over a mean 8.6 (SD 2.7) weeks. The study completion rate was 67% (69/103). The combined completion rate of the ESASr and DT&PL was 78.4% (685/874). Patients received a mean 41 (SD 13) information leaflets; 33% (26/79) initiated messaging, 73% (58/79) received messages, and 85% (67/79) received follow-up phone calls. The mean System Usability Scale score was 72.3 (SD 14.7), indicating good usability. Usability was predicted by age (β=-.45), ESASr engagement (β=.5), symptom interference (β=.4), and received knowledge (β=.41). The mean acceptability score, 3.97 (SD 0.5), was above average and predicted by age (β=-.31), ESASr engagement (β=.37), symptom interference (β=.60), self-care self-efficacy (β=.37), and received knowledge (β=.41). ESASr scores improved for total symptom distress (P=.003; Cohen d=0.36), physical symptoms (P=.01; Cohen d=0.31), and emotional symptoms (P=.01; Cohen d=0.31). Daily symptom interference increased (P=.03; Cohen d=0.28), quality of life improved (P=.03; Cohen d=0.27) and health engagement (P=.006; Cohen d=0.35) improved, while knowledge expectations decreased (P≤.001; Cohen d=2.57). Health care professionals were positive toward the portal but called for clearer role delineation and follow-up.

conclusionsThis study supports the feasibility of a support portal and the results indicate the possibility of improving patient outcomes, but further developments are warranted.

Indexed as

acceptabilitydigital health serviceelectronic health recordsfeasibilityhealth engagementmobile phonepatient educationpatient portalpatient-reported outcomesself-management supportsupportive digital health servicesymptom monitoringusabilityweb portal for patients with cancer

Identifiers

PMID38015268
PMCPMC10770793
OpenAlexW4389099334

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.