Cited by 29Cancer survivorship and careMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Reasons for not reaching or using web-based self-management applications, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among cancer survivors, in the context of a randomised controlled trial

Open access
van der Hout, A., van Uden-Kraan, C.F., Holtmaat, K., Jansen, F., Lissenberg-Witte, B.I., Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P., Hardillo, J.A., Baatenburg de Jong, R.J. +21 more·2021·Internet Interventions

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The web-based self-management application Oncokompas was developed to support cancer survivors to monitor health-related quality of life and symptoms (Measure) and to provide tailored information (Learn) and supportive care options (Act). In a previously reported randomised controlled trial (RCT), 68% of 655 recruited survivors were eligible, and of those 45% participated in the RCT. Among participants of the RCT that were randomised to the intervention group, 52% used Oncokompas as intended. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for not participating in the RCT, and reasons for not using Oncokompas among non-users, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among users. METHODS: Reasons for not participating were assessed with a study-specific questionnaire among 243 survivors who declined participation. Usage was investigated among 320 participants randomised to the intervention group of the RCT via system data and a study-specific questionnaire that was assessed during the 1 week follow-up (T1) assessment. RESULTS: Main reasons for not participating were not interested in participation in scientific research (40%) and not interested in scientific research and Oncokompas (28%). Main reasons for not being interested in Oncokompas were wanting to leave the period of being ill behind (29%), no symptom burden (23%), or lacking internet skills (18%). Out of the 320 participants in the intervention group 167 (52%) used Oncokompas as intended. Among 72 non-users, main reasons for not using Oncokompas were no symptom burden (32%) or lack of time (26%). Among 248 survivors that activated their account, satisfaction and user-friendliness were rated with a 7 (scale 0-10). Within 3 (IQR 1-4) sessions, users selected 32 (IQR 6-37) topics. Main reasons for not using healthcare options in Act were that the information in Learn was already sufficient (44%) or no supportive care needs (32%). DISCUSSION: Main reasons for not reaching or using Oncokompas were no symptom burden, no supportive care needs, or lack of time. Users selected many cancer-generic and tumour-specific topics to address, indicating added value of the wide range of available topics.

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 · 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100429

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • Prior digital health interventions were mainly fragmented and symptom-specific.

    “However, these were mainly fragmented, symptom-specific interventions, and the role of a comprehensive digital companion allowing continuous education, self-management, and monitoring is not yet established in cancer survivors.55,56”
  • The role of a comprehensive digital companion allowing continuous education, self-management, and monitoring is not yet established in cancer survivors.

    “However, these were mainly fragmented, symptom-specific interventions, and the role of a comprehensive digital companion allowing continuous education, self-management, and monitoring is not yet established in cancer survivors.55,56”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Hout, A., van Uden-Kraan, C. F., Holtmaat, K., Jansen, F., Lissenberg-Witte, B. I., Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P., Hardillo, J. A., Baatenburg de Jong, R. J., Tiren-Verbeet, N. L., Sommeijer, D. W., de Heer, K., Schaar, C. G., Sedee, R. J. E., Bosscha, K., van den Brekel, M. W. M., Petersen, J. F., Westerman, M., Honings, J., Takes, R. P., Houtenbos, I., van den Broek, W. T., de Bree, R., Jansen, P., Eerenstein, S. E. J., Leemans, C. R., Zijlstra, J. M., Cuijpers, P., van de Poll-Franse, L. V., & Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Flevoziekenhuis (NL)
  • Gelre Hospitals (NL)
  • Stichting Haaglanden Medisch Centrum (NL)
  • Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
  • Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep (NL)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Spaarne Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis (NL)
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
25
Pages
100429
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3186736675
Cited by
29
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • ZonMw
  • KWF Kankerbestrijding (VU 2014-7202)
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
cancer survivors, health-related quality of life, symptom monitoring, technology adoption barriers, internet skills, user satisfaction, supportive care, tailored information

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