Cited by 7Electronic Health Records SystemsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Improving the colorectal cancer care pathway via e-health: a qualitative study among Dutch healthcare providers and managers

Open access
van Deursen, Liza, van der Vaart, Rosalie, Alblas, Eva E., Struijs, Jeroen N., Chavannes, Niels H., Aardoom, Jiska J.·2023·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to identify improvement opportunities within the colorectal cancer (CRC) care pathway using e-health and to examine how these opportunities would contribute to the Quadruple Aim. Methods: In total, 17 semi-structured interviews were held (i.e., nine healthcare providers and eight managers involved in Dutch CRC care). The Quadruple Aim was used as a conceptual framework to gather and systematically structure the data. A directed content analysis approach was employed to code and analyze the data. Results: Interviewees believe the available e-health technology could be better exploited in CRC care. Twelve different improvement opportunities were identified to enhance the CRC care pathway. Some opportunities could be applied in one specific phase of the pathway (e.g., digital applications to support patients in the prehabilitation program to enhance the program’s effects). Others could be deployed in multiple phases or extended outside the hospital care setting (e.g., digital consultation hours to increase care accessibility). Some opportunities could be easily implemented (e.g., digital communication to facilitate treatment preparation), whereas others require structural, systemic changes (e.g., increasing efficiency in patient data exchanges among healthcare professionals). Conclusion: This study provides insights into how e-health could add value to CRC care and contribute to the Quadruple Aim. It shows that e-health has the potential to contribute to the challenges in cancer care. To take the next step forward, the perspectives of other stakeholders must be examined, the identified opportunities should be prioritized, and the requirements for successful implementation should be mapped out.

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/s00520-023-07653-2

Cites

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?

  • Problems connecting digital technologies with electronic health records and existing oncology information systems were reported across ePRO systems, telehealth platforms, mobile applications, and decision-support tools.

    “Problems connecting digital technologies with electronic health records and existing oncology information systems were reported across ePRO systems, telehealth platforms, mobile applications, and decision-support tools [8,32,41,45].”

    From Digital health technologies in oncology services: A scoping review of clinical implementation, organisational evidence gaps, and policy implications (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Results section reports that providers wanted better access to external electronic health records across organizations, supporting a problem with digital data exchange. It does not report problems connecting each of the listed technologies—ePRO systems, telehealth platforms, mobile applications, and decision-support tools—to EHRs or existing oncology information systems. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Only three included studies explicitly involved managers, administrators, or service-level decision-makers.

    “Only three included studies explicitly involved managers, administrators, or service-level decision-makers [8,38,54].”

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [4]Jemal A Ward EM Johnson CJ Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2014, featuring survival JNCI J National Cancer Inst 2017 109 djx030 10.1093/jnci/djx030 PMC5409140 28376154 · DOI
  2. [5]Edwards BK Howe HL Ries LA Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1999, featuring implications of age and aging on US cancer burden Cancer 2002 94 2766 2792 10.1002/cncr.10593 12173348 · DOI
  3. [6]Soerjomataram I Bray F Planning for tomorrow: global cancer incidence and the role of prevention 2020–2070 Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2021 18 663 672 10.1038/s41571-021-00514-z 34079102 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [7]Tortorella GL Fogliatto FS Espôsto KF Healthcare costs’ reduction through the integration of Healthcare 4.0 technologies in developing economies Total Q Manag Bus Excell 2022 33 467 487 10.1080/14783363.2020.1861934 · DOI
  5. [11]Wicks P Stamford J Grootenhuis MA Innovations in e-health Qual Life Res 2014 23 195 203 10.1007/s11136-013-0458-x 23852096 PMC3929022 · DOI
  6. [12]Penedo FJ Oswald LB Kronenfeld JP The increasing value of eHealth in the delivery of patient-centred cancer care Lancet Oncol 2020 21 e240 e251 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30021-8 32359500 PMC7643123 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [13]Dang S Dimmick S Kelkar G Evaluating the evidence base for the use of home telehealth remote monitoring in elderly with heart failure Telemed E-Health 2009 15 783 796 10.1089/tmj.2009.0028 19831704 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [14]Denis F, Lethrosne C, Pourel N, Molinier O, Pointreau Y, Domont J, Bourgeois J, Senellart H, Trémolières P, Lizée T, Bennouna J, Urban T, El Khouri C, Charron A, Septans A, Balavoine M, Landry S, Solal-Céligny P, Letellier C (2017) Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst 109:2017. 10.1093/jnci/djx029 28423407 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [15]Rivière C Brureau L Parnot C Effectiveness of a digital telemonitoring platform for cancer care of older patients: the ConnectElderlyPatientToDoctor study Int J Cancer 2022 10.1002/ijc.34196 35770377 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [16]Tossaint-Schoenmakers R Versluis A Chavannes N The challenge of integrating ehealth into health care: systematic literature review of the Donabedian model of structure, process, and outcome J Med Internet Res 2021 23 e27180 10.2196/27180 33970123 PMC8145079 · DOI
  11. [18]Bodenheimer T Sinsky C From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider Annal Family Med 2014 12 573 576 10.1370/afm.1713 PMC4226781 25384822 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [20]Berg BL, Lune H (2007) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 6th edn. Pearson, London
  13. [27]Hsieh H-F Shannon SE Three approaches to qualitative content analysis Qual Health Res 2005 15 1277 1288 10.1177/1049732305276687 16204405 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [29]Te Boome I Somers AM Graupner C Development and content validation of the Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool Eur J Surg Oncol 2022 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.04.002 35473810 · DOI
  15. [31]Veldhuijzen G Klemt-Kropp M SiveDroste JST Computer-based patient education is non-inferior to nurse counselling prior to colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial Endoscopy 2021 53 254 263 10.1055/a-1225-8708 32702759 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Deursen, L., van der Vaart, R., Alblas, E. E., Struijs, J. N., Chavannes, N. H., & Aardoom, J. J.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2023-03-06
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
203-203
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W4323256422
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm Repository (Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
colorectal cancer, e-health, care pathways, Quadruple Aim, healthcare workers, health managers, digital health applications, prehabilitation, teleconsultation, patient data exchange, care accessibility, treatment preparation
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Telemedicine, Critical Pathways, Qualitative Research

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