Cited by 55Cancer survivorship and careMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Development and usability testing of a web‐based self‐management intervention for oral cancer survivors and their family caregivers

Open access
Badr, H., Lipnick, D., Diefenbach, M.A., Posner, M., Kotz, T., Miles, B., Genden, E.·2016·European Journal of Cancer Care

Abstract

Oral cancer (OC) survivors experience debilitating side effects that affect their quality of life (QOL) and that of their caregivers. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a dyadic, web‐based intervention to improve survivor self‐management and survivor/caregiver QOL. A qualitative needs assessment (semi‐structured interviews) with 13 OC survivors and 12 caregivers was conducted to discern information and support needs as well as preferences regarding website features and tools. Results using Grounded Theory analysis showed that OC survivors and caregivers: (1) want and need practical advice about managing side effects; (2) want to reach out to other survivors/caregivers for information and support; and (3) have both overlapping and unique needs and preferences regarding website features. Usability testing (N = 6 survivors; 5 caregivers) uncovered problems with the intuitiveness, navigation and design of the website that were subsequently addressed. Users rated the website favourably on the dimensions of attractiveness, controllability, efficiency, intuitiveness and learnability, and gave it a total usability score of 80/100. Overall, this study demonstrates that OC survivors and caregivers are interested in using an online programme to improve QOL, and that providing tailored website content and features based on the person's role as survivor or caregiver is important in this population.

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 · 10.1111/ecc.12396

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Previous research suggests that single-page websites or apps with properly labeled interactions and different color depths, familiar icons, and images are more usable and acceptable to cancer survivors.

    “Previous research has yielded comparable results [64,65,69-71], suggesting that single-page websites or apps that enable properly labeled interactions and make use of different color depths, familiar icons, and images are more usable and acceptable to cancer survivors.”

    From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports that users wanted clearer instructions and labels for interacting with site features, and suggested adding pictures; it also reports favorable usability ratings for the CARES website. The paper does not establish that single-page designs, different color depths, or familiar icons improve usability or acceptability, nor does it compare those design choices. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These findings echo many limitations and development requirements gathered in previous research aimed at developing digital programs for supporting cancer survivors.

    “These findings echo many of the limitations and development requirements gathered in previous research aimed at developing digital programs for supporting cancer survivors [64,65,68-73].”

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
Badr, H., Lipnick, D., Diefenbach, M. A., Posner, M., Kotz, T., Miles, B., & Genden, E.
Affiliations
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Northwell Health (US)
Corresponding author
Badr, H.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer Care
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-27
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
806-821
ISSN
0961-5423 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1845329719
Cited by
55
References
57
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Cancer Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R34DE02273)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
oral cancer survivors, family caregivers, online intervention, self-management, quality of life, dyadic intervention, usability testing, needs assessment, side effect management, online support, web design, survivorship care
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mouth Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Self Care, Social Support, User-Computer Interface, Caregivers, Survivors, Needs Assessment, Internet

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