Cited by 387Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityCancer survivorship and careMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer

Open access
Gustafson, David H., Hawkins, Robert, Pingree, Suzanne, McTavish, Fiona, Arora, Neeraj K., Mendenhall, John, Cella, David F., Serlin, Ronald C. +3 more·2001·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Objective Assess impact of a computer-based patient support system on quality of life in younger women with breast cancer, with particular emphasis on assisting the underserved.Design Randomized controlled trial conducted between 1995 and 1998.Setting Five sites: two teaching hospitals (Madison, Wis, and Chicago, Ill), two nonteaching hospitals (Chicago), and a cancer resource center (Indianapolis, Ill). The latter three sites treat many underserved patients.Participants Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (N = 246) under age 60.Interventions Experimental group received Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System (CHESS), a home-based computer system providing information, decision-making, and emotional support.Measurements and main results Pretest and two post-test surveys (at two- and five-month follow-up) measured aspects of participation in care, social/information support, and quality of life. At two-month follow-up, the CHESS group was significantly more competent at seeking information, more comfortable participating in care, and had greater confidence in doctor(s). At five-month follow-up, the CHESS group had significantly better social support and also greater information competence. In addition, experimental assignment interacted with several indicators of medical underservice (race, education, and lack of insurance), such that CHESS benefits were greater for the disadvantaged than the advantaged group.Conclusions Computer-based patient support systems such as CHESS may benefit patients by providing information and social support, and increasing their participation in health care. These benefits may be largest for currently underserved populations.

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 · 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016007435.x

Cites

46 of 46 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Vinokur AD, Threatt BA, Caplan RD, et al. Physical and psychoso- cial functioning and adjustment to breast cancer: long-term follow- up of a screening population. Cancer. 1989;63:394±405.
  2. Aaronson NK, Meyerowitz BE, Bard M, et al. Quality of life research in oncology: past achievements and future priorities. Cancer. 1991;67(3):839±43.
  3. Ende-Murphy K. The relationship of self-directed learning, self- efficacy, and health value in young women with cancer using a computer health education program. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin; 1996. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.
  4. U.S. Bureau of the Census. United States Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, 1990±1997. Washington, DC: Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census; 1998: 20233.
  5. CommerceNet/Nielsen. Electronic commerce on the rise according to CommerceNet /Nielsen Media Research Survey. Jan. 7, 1998; http://www.commerce.net/news/press/121197.html.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gustafson, D. H., Hawkins, R., Pingree, S., McTavish, F., Arora, N. K., Mendenhall, J., Cella, D. F., Serlin, R. C., Apantaku, F. M., Stewart, J., & Salner, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Hartford Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Gustafson, David H.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2001-07
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
435-445
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W1964160869
Cited by
387
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 19
FWCI
31.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01hd032922-02)
  • National Cancer Institute
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (5R01HD32922)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
breast cancer, chess, quality of life, young women, underserved populations, social support, information literacy, patient participation in care, health information seeking, racial disparities, insurance status, educational attainment, emotional support
MeSH terms
Adult, Black or African American, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Information Services, Medically Underserved Area, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Participation, Quality of Life, Social Support, Multivariate Analysis, Linear Models

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