CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Cancer survivorship and careMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an artificial intelligence-based cancer survivorship care plan service using digital platforms: a single-arm prospective pilot study

Kim, Soo Hyun, Park, Shin-Young, Lim, Sung Mook, Yi, Hyemin·2026·Journal of Cancer Survivorship
DOI 10.1007/s11764-025-01848-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose This study tested the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based survivorship care plan (SCP) service (named "quality of life [QOL] + intervention") for posttreatment breast cancer survivors using digital platforms. Methods A single-arm prospective pilot study was conducted, and 38 posttreatment breast cancer survivors in South Korea were enrolled. The QOL + intervention consisted of 1) collection of patient-reported outcomes data from survivors via a mobile app, 2) automated generation of SCP via a website, and 3) in-person SCP review and counseling. Feasibility was assessed using study participation rate, retention rate, mobile app access rate, task completion rate, intervention satisfaction, etc. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated using changes in patient-provider interaction, patient activation, cancer survivors' self-efficacy, and QOL from baseline to 1 week after the intervention. Results Feasibility assessment showed promising results, with a 70.7% participation rate, an 89.5% retention rate, an 88.2% mobile app access rate, a 91.2% task completion rate, and an 88.2% satisfaction rate. The QOL + intervention improved patient activation (p = 0.051, effect size = 0.29), self-efficacy (p = 0.040, effect size = 0.31), and QOL (p = 0.010, effect size = 0.42). However, no significant change occurred in patient-provider interaction after the intervention (p = 0.098). Conclusions The QOL + intervention was feasible and preliminarily e…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11764-025-01848-8

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Park EH, Jung KW, Park NJ, Kang MJ, Yun EH, Kim HJ, Kim JE, Kong HJ, Im JS, Seo HG. Community of population-based regional cancer registries. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2021. Cancer Res Treat. 2024;56:357–71. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.253. · DOI
  3. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, Harewood R, Matz M, Niksic M, Bonaventure A, Valkov M, Johnson CJ, Esteve J, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018;391:1023–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Valdivieso M, Kujawa AM, Jones T, Baker LH. Cancer survivors in the United States: a review of the literature and a call to action. Int J Med Sci. 2012;9:163–73. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.3827. · DOI
  5. Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press; 2006.
  6. Alfano CM, Mayer DK, Bhatia S, Maher J, Scott JM, Nekhlyudov L, Merrill JK, Henderson TO. Implementing personalized pathways for cancer follow-up care in the United States: proceedings from an American cancer society-American society of clinical oncology summit. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:234–47. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21558. · DOI
  7. Kim SH. Survivorship concerns among posttreatment cancer survivors in South Korea: a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2025;162:104982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104982. · DOI
  8. Mayer DK, Nasso SF, Earp JA. Defining cancer survivors, their needs, and perspectives on survivorship health care in the USA. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:e11–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30573-3. · DOI
  9. LaGrandeur W, Armin J, Howe CL, Ali-Akbarian L. Survivorship care plan outcomes for primary care physicians, cancer survivors, and systems: a scoping review. J Cancer Surviv. 2018;12:334–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-017-0673-5. · DOI
  10. Mayer DK, Deal AM, Crane JM, Chen RC, Asher GN, Hanson LC, Wheeler SB, Gerstel A, Green M, Birken S, et al. Using survivorship care plans to enhance communication and cancer care coordination: results of a pilot study. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2016;43:636–45. https://doi.org/10.1188/16.ONF.636-645. · DOI
  11. Chrischilles EA, McDowell BD, Rubenstein L, Charlton M, Pendergast J, Juarez GY, Arora NK. Survivorship care planning and its influence on long-term patient-reported outcomes among colorectal and lung cancer survivors: the CanCORS disease-free survivor follow-up study. J Cancer Surviv. 2015;9:269–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0406-y. · DOI
  12. Palmer SC, Stricker CT, Panzer SL, Arvey SA, Baker KS, Casillas J, Ganz PA, McCabe MS, Nekhlyudov L, Overholser L, et al. Outcomes and satisfaction after delivery of a breast cancer survivorship care plan: results of a multicenter trial. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11:e222–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2014.001404. · DOI
  13. Birken SA, Mayer DK, Weiner BJ. Survivorship care plans: prevalence and barriers to use. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28:290–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-013-0469-x. · DOI
  14. Forsythe LP, Parry C, Alfano CM, Kent EE, Leach CR, Haggstrom DA, Ganz PA, Aziz N, Rowland JH. Use of survivorship care plans in the United States: associations with survivorship care. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1579–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt258. · DOI
  15. Grunfeld E, Julian JA, Pond G, Maunsell E, Coyle D, Folkes A, Joy AA, Provencher L, Rayson D, Rheaume DE, et al. Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4755–62. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.36.8373. · DOI
  16. Nicolaije KA, Ezendam NP, Vos MC, Pijnenborg JM, Boll D, Boss EA, Hermans RH, Engelhart KC, Haartsen JE, Pijlman BM, et al. Impact of an automatically generated cancer survivorship care plan on patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: Longitudinal outcomes of a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3550–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.60.3399. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Jones JM, Matthew A, Tanguay S, Higano CS, Goldenberg L, Howell D, Maganti M. A tailored electronic survivorship care plan for prostate cancer survivors: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2024;213:407–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004359. · DOI
  18. Jefford M, Schofield P, Emery J. Improving survivorship care. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1391–2; author reply 1393–4. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.40.5886 · DOI
  19. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press; 2001.
  20. Osborn J, Ajakaiye A, Cooksley T, Subbe CP. Do mHealth applications improve clinical outcomes of patients with cancer? a critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed literature. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:1469–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04945-4. · DOI
  21. von Gerich H, Moen H, Block LJ, Chu CH, DeForest H, Hobensack M, Michalowski M, Mitchell J, Nibber R, Olalia MA, et al. Artificial Intelligence-based technologies in nursing: a scoping literature review of the evidence. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;127:104153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104153. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Mlakar I, Lin S, Aleksandravica I, Arcimovica K, Eglitis J, Leja M, Salgado Barreira A, Gomez JG, Salgado M, Mata JG, et al. Patients-centered survivorship care plan after cancer treatments based on big data and artificial intelligence technologies (PERSIST): a multicenter study protocol to evaluate efficacy of digital tools supporting cancer survivors. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21:243. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01603-w. · DOI
  23. Reis J, Travado L, Scherrer A, Kosmidis T, Venios S, Laras PE, Oestreicher G, Moehler M, Parolini M, Passardi A, et al. Digital guardian angel supported by an artificial intelligence system to improve quality of life, well-being, and health outcomes of patients with cancer (ONCORELIEF): protocol for a single arm prospective multicenter pilot study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2023;12:e45475. https://doi.org/10.2196/45475. · DOI
  24. Kim SH, Park S, Kim SJ, Hur MH, Lee BG, Han MS. Self-management needs of breast cancer survivors after treatment: Results from a focus group interview. Cancer Nurs. 2020;43:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000641. · DOI
  25. Hong YA, Hossain MM, Chou WS. Digital interventions to facilitate patient-provider communication in cancer care: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2020;29:591–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5310. · DOI
  26. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JC, et al. 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. 1993;85:365–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Choe YH, Lee S, Lim Y, Kim SH. Machine learning-derived model for predicting poor post-treatment quality of life in Korean cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2024;32:143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08347-z. · DOI
  28. Manfuku M, Nishigami T, Mibu A, Yamashita H, Ishida S, Imai R, Lahousse A, Kanamori H, Sumiyoshi K. Complex intervention including pain science education and patient-led goal setting-based self-management strategies for management of aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms: a single-arm feasibility and pilot study. J Cancer Surviv. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-024-01737-6. · DOI
  29. Stan DL, Inselman JW, Ridgeway JL, Johnson KN, Christopherson LA, McColley SM, Brown JK, Phillips SA, Allen SV, Hazelton JK, et al. Pilot implementation to assess the feasibility and care team impact of an app-based interactive care plan to remotely monitor breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2022;16:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-021-01136-1. · DOI
  30. Bear M, Bowers C. Using a nursing framework to measure client satisfaction at a nurse-managed clinic. Public Health Nurs. 1998;15:50–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.1998.tb00321.x. · DOI
  31. Cox CL. An interaction model of client health behavior: theoretical prescription for nursing. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1982;5:41–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198210000-00007. · DOI
  32. Kim JH. A model of cancer patients’ adherence to oral anticancer drugs. Seoul: Chung-Ang University; 2015.
  33. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:1918–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x. · DOI
  34. Ahn YH, Yi CH, Ham OK, Kim BJ. Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the “Patient Activation Measure 13” (PAM13-K) in patients with osteoarthritis. Eval Health Prof. 2015;38:255–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278714540915. · DOI
  35. Kim SH, Lee BG, Lee JY, Kim SJ, Hur MH, Lee MH, Han MS. Psychometric evaluation of a Korean version of the Cancer Survivors’ Self-efficacy scale. Cancer Nurs. 2019;42:509–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000691. · DOI
  36. Yun YH, Bae SH, Kang IO, Shin KH, Lee R, Kwon SI, Park YS, Lee ES. Cross-cultural application of the Korean version of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) breast-cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-BR23). Support Care Cancer. 2004;12:441–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-004-0632-3. · DOI
  37. Laufer T, Lerner B, Petrich A, Quinn AM, Ernst L, Roop A, Knoblauch J, Leasure NC, Jaslow RJ, Hegarty S, et al. Evaluation of a technology-based survivor care plan for breast cancer survivors: Pre-post pilot study. JMIR Cancer. 2019;5:e12090. https://doi.org/10.2196/12090. · DOI
  38. O’Hea E, Wu J, Dietzen L, Harralson T, Boudreaux ED. The polaris oncology survivorship transition (POST) System: a patient- and provider-driven cancer survivorship planning program. J Oncol Navig Surviv. 2016;7:11–24.
  39. Smith KC, Tolbert E, Hannum SM, Radhakrishnan A, Zorn K, Blackford A, Greco S, Smith K, Snyder CF. Comparing web-based provider-initiated and patient-initiated survivorship care planning for cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial. JMIR Cancer. 2016;2:e12. https://doi.org/10.2196/cancer.5947. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kim, S. H., Park, S.-Y., Lim, S. M., & Yi, H.
Affiliations
Inha University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Soo Hyun
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cancer Survivorship
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-06-06
Volume
20
Issue
S1
Pages
544-555
ISSN
  • 1932-2259 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-2267
DOI
10.1007/s11764-025-01848-8
OpenAlex
W4411109503
Cited by
4
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Cancer Survivorship (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government (RS-2022-NR070003)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
breast cancer survivors, survivorship care plans, artificial intelligence, digital health platforms, mobile application, patient activation, self-efficacy, quality of life, patient-provider interaction, feasibility
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Survivorship, Digital Health, Adult, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, Breast Neoplasms, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Care Planning, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Republic of Korea, 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