CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Cancer survivorship and careMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Development and usability testing of the e‐EXCELS tool to guide cancer survivorship follow‐up care

Open access
O'Malley, Denalee M., Davis, Stacy N., Devine, Katie A., Sullivan, Brittany, Bator, Alicja, Clemow, Lynn, Ferrante, Jeanne M., Findley, Patricia A. +2 more·2020·Psycho-Oncology
DOI 10.1002/pon.5222PMC PMC7279518
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to describe a user‐centered (e.g., cancer survivors and clinicians) development process of an eHealth tool designed to facilitate self‐management of cancer survivorship follow‐up care. Methods: Guided by Cognitive‐Social Health Information Processing (C‐SHIP) model and informed by core self‐management skills, we engaged in a user‐centered design process. In phase I, we conducted in‐depth interviews with survivors of breast (n = 33), prostate (n = 4), and colorectal (n = 6) cancers, and (n = 9) primary care providers to develop content and design of the web tool. Phase II utilized iterative user testing interviews (n = 9) to test the web‐based tool prototype. Data from both phases were independently coded using a template/content analytic approach. Results: The top 5 functions identified in phase I for the web‐based platform included: (a) educational materials to learn and prepare for health encounters (80%); (b) questions for health providers (74%); (c) ability to track contact information of providers (67%); (d) provide general information (64%); and, (e) support information (62%). Users of the prototype reported patient burden, tool fatigue, introduction timing of the tool, relevance, and security/privacy as concerns in phase II. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the value of using a theoretically informed and user‐centered design process to develop relevant and patient‐centered eHealth resources to support cancer survivorship. A larger study is needed to establish the efficacy of this eHealth tool as an intervention to improve adherence to follow‐up care guidelines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.5222

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This finding aligns with previous research and emphasizes the importance of building flexibility into digital programs targeting cancer survivors, in terms of tailoring and frequency/timing of use, to ensure uptake.

    “This finding aligns with previous research [66,72,76,77] and emphasizes the importance of building flexibility into digital programs targeting cancer survivors, not only in terms of tailoring but also in terms of frequency and timing of use, to ensure its uptake by target users.”

    From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Results and Discussion (page unavailable) report that survivors wanted a tailored, interactive tool and describe self-directed use; Phase II usability testing also identified timing in the survivorship trajectory as a concern. The paper does not specifically establish that flexibility in the frequency and timing of use is needed to ensure uptake. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Survivors valued access to ubiquitous evidence-based self-care information organized according to the cancer continuum, considering it could help them better manage and cope with their condition and problems.

    “Similar to previous research [64-66], survivors valued having access to ubiquitous evidence-based self-care information that was organized in accordance with the cancer continuum, considering that it could help them better manage and cope with their condition and problems.”

    From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Results (Phase I Feedback; page unavailable) say survivors focused on educational materials about symptoms and self-care, and the Discussion says they wanted targeted, credible information to prepare for health encounters. The paper does not report that survivors specifically valued ubiquitous access or information organized across the cancer continuum; its tool focuses on long-term survivorship follow-up. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Neilsen J Usability Engineering. 1993 New York: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
O'Malley, D. M., Davis, S. N., Devine, K. A., Sullivan, B., Bator, A., Clemow, L., Ferrante, J. M., Findley, P. A., Miller, S. M., & Hudson, S. V.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey New Brunswick New Jersey
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Fox Chase Cancer Center (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-18
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
123-131
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
DOI
10.1002/pon.5222
PMC
PMC7279518
OpenAlex
W2981245158
Cited by
25
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA 1766838, P30 CA072720)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
cancer survivorship, follow-up care, eHealth tools, self-management, user-centered design, breast cancer survivors, prostate cancer survivors, colorectal cancer survivors, primary care providers, usability testing, patient-centered care, health information needs
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Self-Management, Survivorship, Aftercare, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, User-Computer Interface, Telemedicine, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review