ArticleTumori2026
Survey among childhood cancer survivors about their preferences on functionalities of a to-be-developed Survivorship Passport Mobile App.
Article in Tumori, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInvestigate preferences of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) or of their caregivers (CG) about functionalities of a to be developed mobile app intended to improve compliance with a personalized survivorship care plan (Survivorship Passport) delivered according to the PanCareFollowUp model. STUDY SETTING AND
designA 19-item Likert-type questionnaire was distributed by Childhood Cancer International among its affiliated associations. App functionalities were grouped into four modules (My Passport; My Hospital; Communication/Telehealth; My Health) and assigned to one of the Quality of cancer Survivorship Care Framework (QCSCF) domains.Data source and analytic sample:A decreasing score was given to each answer with "very useful" having the score of 4 and "not useful" the score of 1. Response data were reported with their mean (μ) score and values >3.5, between 3.2 - 3.5, 2.6 - 3.1 and <3.1 were defined as "very appreciated" "appreciated", "fairly appreciated" and "not appreciated", respectively. PRINCIPAL
findingsOne hundred and fifty-four subjects (55% CG) completed the survey. Six functionalities were very appreciated and belonged either to the My Passport (n=3), My Hospital (n=2) or Communication/Telehealth (n=1) modules. Nine functionalities were appreciated (Communication/Telehealth n=6, My Passport n=3). Functionalities of the My Health module were the least appreciated. When functionalities were pooled according to the QCSCF, those pertinent to the health care delivery contextual domain were very appreciated, while those related to cancer and its treatment were not appreciated.
conclusionsThis survey provided useful information which contributed to the development of the Cancer Survio Smart Card prototype by the SmartCARE consortium.
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.