ArticleDigital health
Cross-sectional study on user requirements for developing a digital patient navigator app.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess patients' preferences regarding the content and features of a digital patient navigator app. A secondary objective was to explore how patient characteristics influence the perceived importance and anticipated frequency of use of different app components. Methods: The study was a monocentric cross-sectional survey conducted at the University Hospital Erlangen. A questionnaire consisting of 20 questions was designed to inquire about patients' preferences for a digital patient navigator. Participants had breast diseases. Descriptive analyses were conducted to identify key app features and their correlation with patient characteristics. Results: Questionnaires from 243 patients were analyzed. Preferred key app features, in order of preference from highest to lowest, were as follows: a communication feature to chat with treating physicians, a personalized treatment plan, real-time notifications, mediation services for providing support, 3D navigation within the hospital, and personal documents. Patients' age, native language, and education significantly influenced the assessment of importance and frequency of use of some app features. A personalized treatment plan was considered more important by younger individuals (≤60 years, Conclusion: These findings suggest that a patient navigator app could be a valuable tool for a broad range of patients, potentially complementing in-person patient navigators. To ensure broad usability and acceptance, future development should account for varying needs across patient subgroups-particularly in terms of personalization, language accessibility, and communication features.
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.