Developing a digital intervention for cancer survivors: an evidence-, theory- and person-based approach
Open accessAbstract
This paper illustrates a rigorous approach to developing digital interventions using an evidence-, theory- and person-based approach. Intervention planning included a rapid scoping review that identified cancer survivors’ needs, including barriers and facilitators to intervention success. Review evidence ( N = 49 papers) informed the intervention’s Guiding Principles, theory-based behavioural analysis and logic model. The intervention was optimised based on feedback on a prototype intervention through interviews ( N = 96) with cancer survivors and focus groups with NHS staff and cancer charity workers ( N = 31). Interviews with cancer survivors highlighted barriers to engagement, such as concerns about physical activity worsening fatigue. Focus groups highlighted concerns about support appointment length and how to support distressed participants. Feedback informed intervention modifications, to maximise acceptability, feasibility and likelihood of behaviour change. Our systematic method for understanding user views enabled us to anticipate and address important barriers to engagement. This methodology may be useful to others developing digital interventions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The small sample size used to represent the target population means the study may not have covered all context-specific behaviors that users with GAD may experience.
“Compared with other PBA studies [44,76,77], the small sample size used in this study to represent the target population means that study may not have covered all context-specific behaviors that users with GAD may experience.”
From Development and feasibility of a digital acceptance and commitment therapy⇓based intervention for generalized anxiety disorder: Pilot acceptability study (2021) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 93 · Cited by 54
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [31]Erwin K Communicating The New: Methods To Shape And Accelerate Innovation 2013 New Jersey John Wiley & Sons
- Authors
- Bradbury, K., Steele, M., Corbett, T., Geraghty, A. W. A., Krusche, A., Heber, E., Easton, S., Cheetham-Blake, T., Slodkowska-Barabasz, J., Müller, A. M., Smith, K., Wilde, L. J., Payne, L., Singh, K., Bacon, R., Burford, T., Summers, K., Turner, L., Richardson, A., Watson, E., Foster, C., Little, P., & Yardley, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Southampton General Hospital (GB)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Coventry University (GB)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Oxford Brookes University (GB)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bradbury, Katherine
- Yardley, Lucy
- ORCID
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2019-09-02
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85-85
- ISSN
- 2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6718425
- OpenAlex
- W2971313112
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 93
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 5.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Solent University Research Portal (Solent University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- DH | NIHR | Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-0514-20001)
- 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
- digital interventions, cancer survivors, intervention development, logic model, barriers and facilitators, physical activity, fatigue, user engagement, acceptability, feasibility, behavior change, NHS staff
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
