Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42735397›Full record

Observational studyJMIR formative research2026

Health Literacy and Capecitabine Adherence in a Remote Monitoring Pilot Trial for Breast Cancer: Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis.

Samuel Hernandez, Jane Meisel, Gelareh Sadigh, Ilana Graetz

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Samuel HernandezMedical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4490-0107
Jane MeiselWinship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2642-865X
Gelareh SadighSchool of Medicine, Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3233-1878
Ilana GraetzWinship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3664-5815

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOral anticancer therapy enables convenient, home-based cancer care but can introduce adherence challenges, particularly with complex dosing schedules. Capecitabine is commonly used in breast cancer, often as adjuvant therapy or in advanced disease, and typically requires twice-daily dosing on cyclical schedules, increasing the risk of missed or incorrect doses. Low health literacy may exacerbate these difficulties, and emerging remote monitoring tools may help close this gap.

objectiveIn this post hoc exploratory analysis, we evaluated whether health literacy (1) was associated with capecitabine adherence and (2) modified a remote monitoring intervention's effectiveness.

methodsWe conducted post hoc analyses of a 2-arm pilot trial that randomized women with breast cancer treated with capecitabine to enhanced usual care (EUC) or remote patient monitoring (RPM). Adherence was captured with a smart pill bottle, Nomi by SMRxT, that recorded dose timing and quantity. Participants in the RPM group received messages for missed or incorrect doses and weekly symptom assessments. Incorrect or missed doses and severe symptoms triggered alerts to the oncologist. Health literacy was assessed at enrollment. To evaluate moderation, we used linear regression with an interaction term (health literacy × intervention arm) predicting adherence (proportion of days). Marginal effects quantified differences in adherence by study arm and health literacy.

resultsAmong 28 participants (EUC, n=15 and RPM, n=13), 9 (32.1%) had lower health literacy, 16 (57.1%) identified as Black, 10 (35.7%) identified as White, and 15 (53.6%) had income below 200% of the federal poverty level. In the regression model, the health literacy × randomized group interaction did not reach statistical significance (-16.3 percentage points, 95% CI -35.5 to 2.9; P=.09). Predicted adherence among lower health literacy participants was 87.5% in the RPM group and 65.5% in the EUC group (difference: +22.1 percentage points, 95% CI 6.2-37.9; P=.008). Among participants with higher health literacy, adherence was 89.9% in the RPM group and 84.1% in the EUC group (difference: +5.7 percentage points, 95% CI -5.2 to 16.7; P=.29). Within the EUC group, predicted adherence was 18.6 percentage points lower among those with lower versus higher health literacy (95% CI -32.4 to -4.9; P=.01); within the RPM group, this difference was 2.3 percentage points lower among those with lower versus higher health literacy (95% CI -15.8 to 11.1; P=.73).

conclusionsIn this post hoc exploratory analysis, the estimated difference in capecitabine adherence between the RPM and EUC groups was larger among participants with lower health literacy. Although the formal interaction test was not statistically significant, the magnitude and direction of the observed difference support further investigation of RPM as a potential approach to improve adherence among patients facing health literacy-related adherence barriers. Larger, prospectively powered studies are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate downstream clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCapecitabineHealth LiteracyMedication AdherenceAdherence InterventionsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRemote Patient MonitoringCapecitabineadherencebreast cancercapecitabinehealth literacymHealthmobile healthremote patient monitoring

Identifiers

PMID42735397
PMCPMC13620428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.