Implementation of a mobile inpatient quality of life (QoL) assessment for oncology nursing
Abstract
Purpose Cancer patients suffer from a variety of symptoms, but little is known about changes during hospitalization and symptom burden at discharge. We implemented an electronic quality of life (QoL) assessment used by the nursing team in routine inpatient care. Feasibility, acceptance, and the course of QoL were investigated. Methods A self-administered electronic questionnaire based on the EQ-5D and the EORTC QLQ-C30 was applied in clinical routine. Cancer patients were approached by the nursing staff to complete the QoL assessment twice, at admission and at the day of discharge. Both the feedback of the nursing staff as well as characteristics of participants were used to evaluate the electronic assessment. Results Out of 210 patients from an oncologic ward, 85 patients (40 %) were invited to participate, 95 % of whom (n = 81) agreed to participate. Participation rate depended on the day of admission, the presence of the coordinating nurse, the overall morbidity assessed by patient clinical complexity level, and the patient age. Forty-six patients (56 %) asked for assistance in completing the questionnaire. Patients older than 53 years and male patients were more likely to need assistance. Twenty-two percent of the nursing staff (n = 5) use the information assessed for individual patient care. Fifty-two percent (n = 12) rated the additional workload as very little or little and 68 % (n = 15) agreed that handling for the patient was easy. Global QoL improved during the stay…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Digital literacy, language, access to devices, reliable internet connectivity, and confidence using technology affected participation across several studies.
“Digital literacy, language, access to devices, reliable internet connectivity, and confidence using technology affected participation across several studies [25,37,46,48,50,58].”
From Digital health technologies in oncology services: A scoping review of clinical implementation, organisational evidence gaps, and policy implications (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
Cites
Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.06.078 · Cited by 1,382 · see citing works
Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x · Cited by 623 · see citing works
Fromme, E. K., Eilers, K. M., Mori, M., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Beer, T. M. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.03.025 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tsitsi, T., Polychronis, G., Papoui, E., Cloconi, C., Michail, K., & Charalambous, A. (2026) · Journal of Cancer Policy · doi:10.1016/j.jcpo.2026.100789
- Authors
- Schuler, M. K., Trautmann, F., Radloff, M., Schmädig, R., Hentschel, L., Eberlein-Gonska, M., Petzold, T., Vetter, H., Oberlack, S., Ehninger, G., & Schmitt, J.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (DE)
- Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Hentschel, Leopold
- ORCID
- Venue
- Supportive Care in Cancer
- Published
- 2016-03-16
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 3391-3399
- ISSN
- 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-7339
- OpenAlex
- W2297302874
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 0.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Keywords
- quality of life, cancer patients, inpatient care, oncology nursing, electronic questionnaires, EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30, symptom burden, discharge, feasibility, nursing workload, patient support, fatigue, pain, insomnia, appetite loss
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Female, Patient Care, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Middle Aged, Oncology Nursing, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Internet, 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