Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40299155›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025

A novel ecological momentary assessment app for the investigation of daily cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors: a feasibility study.

Annalee L Cobden, Jake Burnett, Jacqueline B Saward, Alex Burmester, Mervyn Singh, Juan F Domínguez D, Priscilla Gates, Jocelyn Lippey, Karen Caeyenberghs

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Annalee L CobdenCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. cobdena@deakin.edu.au.
Jake BurnettCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Jacqueline B SawardCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Alex BurmesterCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Mervyn SinghCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Juan F Domínguez DCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Priscilla GatesCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Jocelyn LippeyDepartment of Breast Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Karen CaeyenberghsCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBreast cancer survivors often experience cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), such as problems with memory and attention. However, typical neuropsychological test batteries are unable to capture the day-to-day variability of cognition and may be underestimating CRCI. The present study aims to assess the feasibility, usability, and validity of a novel ecological momentary assessment (EMA) app of cognition.

methodsNineteen breast cancer survivors 6-36-month post-chemotherapy and 28 healthy controls completed the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery. Subsequently, participants completed the EMA app (once a day, for 30 days) comprising four cognitive tasks assessing processing speed, working memory, inhibition, and attention. At the conclusion of the app, participants completed a usability questionnaire on which content analysis was performed. Feasibility was assessed against eight criteria, including accessibility, app compliance, and technical smoothness. Convergent construct validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation analyses between the NIH toolbox and the EMA app.

resultsFive of eight feasibility criteria were met, including accessibility, app motivation, participation rate, drop-out, and data collection. Additionally, our content analyses revealed four themes important to usability: self-development, altruism, engagement, and functionality. Majority of the EMA tasks were moderately positively correlated with the corresponding constructs of the NIH toolbox tasks (R's range 0.55-0.64), indicating better performance on the EMA app coincided with better performance on the NIH toolbox.

conclusionsOur findings show the app was accessible, participants were motivated to complete sessions, and our tasks showed good construct validity. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our novel EMA app can be used as a comprehensive cognitive measure in cancer survivors.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsChemotherapy-Related Cognitive ImpairmentEcological Momentary AssessmentMobile ApplicationsAdultCase-Control StudiesCognitionFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsStatistics, NonparametricSurveys and QuestionnairesUser-Centered DesignBreast cancerCancer-related cognitive impairmentCognitionEcological momentary assessmentPsycho-oncology

Identifiers

PMID40299155
PMCPMC12041178

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.