Usability Evaluation of a Mobile Phone–Based System for Remote Monitoring and Management of Chemotherapy-Related Side Effects in Cancer Patients: Mixed-Methods Study
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As most chemotherapy is administered in the outpatient setting, patients are required to manage related side effects at home without direct support from health professionals. The Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) has been developed to facilitate the remote monitoring and management of chemotherapy-related toxicity in patients with cancer, using patient-reported outcomes questionnaires and a clinician alerting system. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the usability of the ASyMS, a mobile phone-based technology, from the perspective of Canadian patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy to identify existing design, functionality, and usability issues and elicit their views, experiences, and satisfaction with the ASyMS. METHODS: We used a mixed-method approach to data collection with user-based testing, a think-aloud technique, semistructured interviews, and short answer questionnaires with a purposive sample of 10 patients with cancer. Participants attended usability testing sessions at the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, University Health Network, and performed specific tasks on the ASyMS device. The test was videorecorded and each task was timed during the test. After the usability sessions, participants completed a posttest questionnaire and participated in a semistructured qualitative interview. A thematic analysis was used to code and categorize the identified issues into themes that summarized the type and frequency of occurrence. RESULTS: The thematic analysis generated 3 overarching themes as follows: ASyMS user-friendliness; usefulness of ASyMS (content quality and richness); and intention to use. Results from the posttest questionnaire indicated that 80% (8/10) of participants had great motivation to use the ASyMS, 70% (7/10) had positive perceptions of the successful use of the ASyMS, and all (10/10, 100%) had a positive attitude toward using the ASyMS in the future. Most identified design and functionality issues were related to the navigation of the ASyMS device and a desire for a more attractive design with advanced functionality and features. The main general design recommendations were as follows: enhance the readability of the screen; implement advance options (eg, search option); and support better navigation. CONCLUSIONS: The ASyMS has shown positive perceptions of patients in usability testing and qualitative interviews. An evaluation of the effects of the ASyMS on symptom outcomes in a clinical trial is needed.
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?
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].”
From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [68]
The Results (page unavailable) identify usability limitations in the mobile system, and the Discussion (page unavailable) recommends improvements to navigation, readability, and self-care content. This supports the claim about development requirements for digital cancer support, but the study concerns patients managing chemotherapy side effects, not specifically cancer survivors after treatment. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 64 · Cited by 56
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [34]Gibbs G Analysing Qualitative Data 2007 London, England SAGE PUBN
- Authors
- Moradian, S., Krzyzanowska, M. K., Maguire, R., Morita, P. P., Kukreti, V., Avery, J., Liu, G., Cafazzo, J., & Howell, D.
- Affiliations
- University Health Network (CA)
- University of Strathclyde (GB)
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Howell, Doris
- ORCID
- Venue
- JMIR Cancer
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2018-12-21
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e10932
- ISSN
- 2369-1999 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6320433
- OpenAlex
- W2899013919
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 9.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Keywords
- usability evaluation, remote monitoring, cancer patients, patient-reported outcomes, symptom management, ease of use, navigation design, intention to use, patient satisfaction
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