CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsCancer survivorship and careDigital Mental Health Interventions

Feasibility of an eHealth application “OncoKompas” to improve personalized survivorship cancer care

Open access
Duman-Lubberding, S., van Uden-Kraan, C.F., Jansen, F., Witte, B.I., van der Velden, L.A., Lacko, M., Cuijpers, P., Leemans, C.R. +1 more·2016·Supportive Care in Cancer
DOI 10.1007/s00520-015-3004-2PMC PMC4805720
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of an online self-management application (OncoKompas) among cancer survivors. In OncoKompas, cancer survivors can monitor their quality of life (QOL) via participant reported outcomes (PROs) ("Measure"), which is followed by automatically generated individually tailored feedback ("Learn") and personalized advice on supportive care services ("Act"). METHODS: A pretest-posttest design was used, conducting a survey before providing access to OncoKompas, and 2 weeks after, followed by an interview by a nurse. Adoption was defined as the percentage of cancer survivors that agreed to participate in the study and returned the T0 questionnaire. Implementation was defined as the percentage of participants that actually used OncoKompas as intended (T1). General satisfaction was assessed based on the mean score of three study-specific questions: (1) general impression of OncoKompas, (2) the user-friendliness, and (3) the ability to use OncoKompas without assistance (10-point Likert scales). Furthermore, satisfaction was measured with the Net Promotor Scale (NPS). RESULTS: OncoKompas was feasible with an adoption grade of 64 %, an implementation grade of 75-91 %, a mean satisfaction score of 7.3, and a positive NPS (1.9). Sociodemographic and clinical factors and QOL were not associated with satisfaction. Several facilitators and barriers related to the feasibility of OncoKompas were identified. CONCLUSION: OncoKompas is considered feasible, but has to be further improved. In order to enhance feasibility and increase satisfaction, we have to balance the time it takes to use OncoKompas, measurement precision, and tailoring towards personalized advices.

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 · 10.1007/s00520-015-3004-2

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • UCD/HCD approaches prioritize the needs, preferences, and lived experiences of end users through iterative, participatory design processes that foster usability, engagement, and real-world applicability.

    “These approaches prioritize the needs, preferences, and lived experiences of end users (ie, patients, caregivers, and providers) through iterative, participatory design processes that foster usability, engagement, and real-world applicability [13,14].”

    From User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Introduction (page not provided) describes a participatory, stepwise design process involving cancer survivors and health care professionals: their needs were assessed, and usability feedback led to revisions. This supports the claim’s account of user-informed design and attention to usability and clinical feasibility. The paper does not describe caregiver involvement or establish that these approaches generally foster engagement and real-world applicability. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • OncoKompas [13] and MijnAVL [21] involved cancer survivors directly in iterative prototype testing to refine content, navigation features, and overall functionality.

    “Tools such as OncoKompas [13] and MijnAVL [21] exemplify this approach, with cancer survivors directly involved in iterative prototype testing to refine content, navigation features, and overall functionality.”

    From User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says cancer survivors tested an OncoKompas prototype for usability and content quality, and that their feedback led to user-interface adjustments. It does not identify changes to navigation features; it attributes improvements in tailoring and usefulness to health care professionals’ feedback. This verdict concerns OncoKompas, not MijnAVL, which has a separate citation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • OncoKompas is an app codeveloped with cancer survivors that enables users to monitor their quality of life through patient-reported outcomes and receive automated, personalized feedback and supportive care recommendations.

    “OncoKompas [13], an app codeveloped with cancer survivors, enables users to monitor their quality of life through patient-reported outcomes and receive automated, personalized feedback and supportive care recommendations”

    From User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

  • Many of the included technologies were evaluated in pilot, feasibility, or early implementation studies.

    “Finally, many of the included technologies were evaluated in pilot, feasibility, or early implementation studies [39,43,53,54].”

    From Digital health technologies in oncology services: A scoping review of clinical implementation, organisational evidence gaps, and policy implications (2026) · cites this paper as [39]

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: 31

  1. [1]A. de Graeff, J. R. de Leeuw, W. J. Ros, G. J. Hordijk, G. H. Blijham, and J. A. Winnubst, “Long-term quality of life of patients with head and neck cancer.,” Laryngoscope, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 98–106, Jan. 2000. 10646723
  2. [3]N. K. Aaronson, V. Mattioli, O. Minton, J. Weis, C. Johansen, S. O. Dalton, I. M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, K. D. Stein, C. M. Alfano, A. Mehnert, A. de Boer, and L. V. van de Poll-Franse, “Beyond treatment – psychosocial and behavioural issues in cancer survivorship research and practice,” Eur J Cancer Suppl, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 54–64, Jun. 2014. PMC4250535 26217166
  3. [7]A. J. Mitchell, “Short screening tools for cancer-related distress: a review and diagnostic validity meta-analysis.,” J Natl Compr Cancer Netw, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 487–494, Apr. 2010. 20410338
  4. [8]A. J. Mitchell, “Screening for cancer-related distress: when is implementation successful and when is it unsuccessful?,” Acta Oncol, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 216–224, Feb. 2013. 23320770
  5. [9]M. I. Fitch, “Supportive care framework.,” Can Oncol Nurs J, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 6–24, Jan. 2008. 18512565
  6. [11]J. N. Stinson, G. C. Petroz, B. J. Stevens, B. M. Feldman, D. Streiner, P. J. McGrath, and N. Gill, “Working out the kinks: testing the feasibility of an electronic pain diary for adolescents with arthritis.,” Pain Res. Manag., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 375–382, Jan.. PMC2799260 18958308
  7. [12]R. van der Vaart, C. H. C. Drossaert, E. Taal, and M. A. F. J. van de Laar, “Patient preferences for a hospital-based rheumatology interactive health communication application and factors associated with these preferences.,” Rheumatology (Oxford)., vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1618–1626, Sep. 2011. 21551221
  8. [13]S. Lubberding, C. F. van Uden-Kraan, E. A. Te Velde, P. Cuijpers, C. R. Leemans, and I. M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, “Improving access to supportive cancer care through an eHealth application: a qualitative needs assessment among cancer survivors.,” J. Clin. Nurs., Feb. 2015. 25677218
  9. [14]R. de Bree, I. M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, A. L. Keizer, A. Houffelaar, and C. R. Leemans, “Touch screen computer-assisted health-related quality of life and distress data collection in head and neck cancer patients.,” Clin Otolaryngol, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 138–142, Apr. 2008. 18429869
  10. [15]S. Vosbergen, E. K. Laan, E. B. Colkesen, M. A. J. Niessen, R. A. Kraaijenhagen, M.-L. Essink-Bot, and N. Peek, “Evaluation of end-user satisfaction among employees participating in a web-based health risk assessment with tailored feedback.,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 14, no. 5, p. e140, Jan. 2012. PMC3510759 23111097
  11. [17]R. G. Booth, “Examining the functionality of the DeLone and McLean information system success model as a framework for synthesis in nursing information and communication technology research.,” Comput. Inform. Nurs., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 330–345, Jun. 2012. 22411411
  12. [18]S. Lubberding, C.F. Van Uden-Kraan, W.J.M.J. Cuijpers, C.R. Leemans, and I.M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, “Developing an eHealth portal targeting survivorship cancer care: a user-centred design approach.,” Psycho-Oncology, vol. 22, pp. 15–16, 2013.
  13. [19]Reichheld F, Markey R (2011) the ultimate question 2.0 (revised and expanded edition): how net promoter companies thrive in a customer-driven world. Harvard Business School Press:224
  14. [20]J. F. Piccirillo, R. M. Tierney, I. Costas, L. Grove, and E. L. Spitznagel, “Prognostic importance of comorbidity in a hospital-based cancer registry.,” Jama, vol. 291, no. 20, pp. 2441–2447, May 2004. 15161894
  15. [21]N. K. Aaronson, S. Ahmedzai, B. Bergman, M. Bullinger, A. Cull, N. J. Duez, A. Filiberti, H. Flechtner, S. B. Fleishman, and J. C. de Haes, “The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.,” J Natl Cancer Inst, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 365–376, Mar. 1993. 8433390
  16. [22]I. C. Cnossen, C. F. van Uden-Kraan, R. N. P. M. Rinkel, I. J. Aalders, C. J. T. de Goede, R. de Bree, P. Doornaert, D. H. F. Rietveld, J. A. Langendijk, B. I. Witte, C. R. Leemans, and I. M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, “Multimodal guided self-help exercise program to prevent speech, swallowing, and shoulder problems among head and neck cancer patients: a feasibility study.,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 16, no. 3, p. e74, Jan. 2014. PMC3961811 24610383
  17. [23]C. M. Ruland, T. Andersen, A. Jeneson, S. Moore, G. H. Grimsbø, E. Børøsund, and M. C. Ellison, “Effects of an internet support system to assist cancer patients in reducing symptom distress: a randomized controlled trial.,” Cancer Nurs, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 6–17, Jan. 2013. 22495503
  18. [24]C. M. Ruland, R. M. Maffei, E. Børøsund, A. Krahn, T. Andersen, and G. H. Grimsbø, “Evaluation of different features of an eHealth application for personalized illness management support: cancer patients’ use and appraisal of usefulness.,” Int J Med Inform, vol. 82, no. 7, pp. 593–603, Jul. 2013. 23507561
  19. [25]C. K. L. Or and B.-T. Karsh, 2009 “A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology.,” J Am Med Inform Assoc, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 550–560, Jan.. PMC2705259 19390112
  20. [26]Y. K. Bartlett, D. L. Selby, A. Newsham, A. Keding, D. Forman, J. Brown, G. Velikova, and P. Wright, “Developing a useful, user-friendly website for cancer patient follow-up: users’ perspectives on ease of access and usefulness.,” Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 747–757, Nov. 2012. 22533456
  21. [27]E. Børøsund, M. Cvancarova, M. Ekstedt, S. M. Moore, and C. M. Ruland, “How user characteristics affect use patterns in web-based illness management support for patients with breast and prostate cancer.,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 15, no. 3, p. e34, Jan. 2013. PMC3636230 23454601
  22. [28]A.-M. Wiggers, N. Peek, R. Kraaijenhagen, and M. Jaspers, “Determinants of eligibility and use of ehealth for cardiac rehabilitation patients: preliminary results.,” Stud Health Technol Inform, vol. 205, pp. 818–822, Jan. 2014. 25160301
  23. [29]C. F. Van Uden-Kraan, C. H. C. Drossaert, E. Taal, W. M. Smit, H. J. Bernelot Moens, and M. A. F. J. Van de Laar, “Determinants of engagement in face-to-face and online patient support groups.,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 13, no. 4, p. e106, Jan. 2011. PMC3278092 22155649
  24. [32]Y. M. Chae, H. J. Park, J. G. Cho, G. D. Hong, and K. A. Cheon, “The reliability and acceptability of telemedicine for patients with schizophrenia in Korea.,” J Telemed Telecare, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 83–90, Jan. 2000. 10824375
  25. [33]J.-G. Jeannot, F. Froehlich, V. Wietlisbach, B. Burnand, O. Terraz, and J.-P. Vader, “Patient use of the internet for health care information in Switzerland.,” Swiss Med Wkly, vol. 134, no. 21–22, pp. 307–312, May 2004. 15243842
  26. [34]Millard R. W. Fintak P. A. Use of the internet by patients with chronic illness Dis Manag Heal Outcomes 2002 10 3 187 194 10.2165/00115677-200210030-00006 · DOI
  27. [35]Venkatesh F. D. Morris V. Davis M.G. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view MIS Quarterly. 2003 27 425 478
  28. [36]V. Voncken-Brewster, H. Tange, A. Moser, Z. Nagykaldi, H. de Vries, and T. van der Weijden, “Integrating a tailored e-health self-management application for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients into primary care: a pilot study.,” BMC Fam Pract, vol. 15, p. 4, Jan. 2014. PMC3907149 24400676
  29. [37]W. Brouwer, A. Oenema, R. Crutzen, J. de Nooijer, N. K. de Vries, and J. Brug, “What makes people decide to visit and use an internet-delivered behavior-change intervention?,” Health Educ, vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 460–473, Oct. 2009.
  30. [38]J. O. Prochaska, “Multiple health behavior research represents the future of preventive medicine.,” Prev Med (Baltim)., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 281–285, Mar. 2008. 18319100
  31. [39]J. R. Schubart, H. L. Stuckey, A. Ganeshamoorthy, and C. N. Sciamanna, “Chronic health conditions and internet behavioral interventions: a review of factors to enhance user engagement.,” Comput Inform Nurs, vol. 29, no. 2 Suppl, pp. TC9–T20, Feb. 2011. 21372645

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duman-Lubberding, S., van Uden-Kraan, C. F., Jansen, F., Witte, B. I., van der Velden, L. A., Lacko, M., Cuijpers, P., Leemans, C. R., & Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Cancer Center Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-11-12
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
2163-2171
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
DOI
10.1007/s00520-015-3004-2
PMC
PMC4805720
OpenAlex
W2286951424
Cited by
112
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3
FWCI
18.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
KWF Kankerbestrijding (NL) (2010.02.23)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
survivorship care, e-health applications, self-management, quality of life, personalized feedback, tailored advice, supportive care services, user satisfaction, feasibility, technology adoption, implementation, Net Promoter Score
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Personal Satisfaction, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Telemedicine, Survivors, Patient-Centered Care, Precision Medicine, Mobile Applications

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