Cancer-Related Fatigue in Post-Treatment Cancer Survivors: Theory-Based Development of a Web-Based Intervention
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CrF) is the most common and disruptive symptom experienced by cancer survivors. We aimed to develop a theory-based, interactive Web-based intervention designed to facilitate self-management and enhance coping with CrF following cancer treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to outline the rationale, decision-making processes, methods, and findings which led to the development of a Web-based intervention to be tested in a feasibility trial. This paper outlines the process and method of development of the intervention. METHODS: An extensive review of the literature and qualitative research was conducted to establish a therapeutic approach for this intervention, based on theory. The psychological principles used in the development process are outlined, and we also clarify hypothesized causal mechanisms. We describe decision-making processes involved in the development of the content of the intervention, input from the target patient group and stakeholders, the design of the website features, and the initial user testing of the website. RESULTS: The cocreation of the intervention with the experts and service users allowed the design team to ensure that an acceptable intervention was developed. This evidence-based Web-based program is the first intervention of its kind based on self-regulation model theory, with the primary aim of targeting the representations of fatigue and enhancing self-management of CrF, specifically. CONCLUSIONS: This research sought to integrate psychological theory, existing evidence of effective interventions, empirically derived principles of Web design, and the views of potential users into the systematic planning and design of the intervention of an easy-to-use website for cancer survivors.
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?
Multiple authors in the included studies indicated that usability tests should be conducted with a broad range of stakeholders, not only end users such as patients, but also caregivers, managers, technology developers, and experts on content and design.
“First, multiple authors indicated that usability tests should be conducted with a broad range of stakeholders: not only end users such as patients, but also caregivers, managers, technology developers, and experts on content and design”
From Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review (2022) · cites this paper as [43]
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 70 · Cited by 18
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [25]Andrykowski MA Donovan KA Laronga C Jacobsen PB Prevalence, predictors, and characteristics of off-treatment fatigue in breast cancer survivors Cancer 2010 12 15 116 24 5740 8 10.1002/cncr.25294 10.1002/cncr.25294 20734399 20734399 PMC4048855 · DOI
- [66]Foster C Grimmett C May Cm Ewings S Myall M Hulme C Smith Pw Powers C Calman L Armes J Breckons M Corner J Fenlon D Batehup L Lennan E R. May C Morris C Neylon A Ream E Turner L Yardley L Richardson A A web-based intervention (RESTORE) to support self-management of cancer-related fatigue following primary cancer treatment: a multi-centre proof of concept randomised controlled trial Support Care Cancer 2015 12 7 24 6 2445 2453 10.1007/s00520-015-3044-7 26643072 26643072 PMC4846690 · DOI
- [70]Yardley L Introduction to the LifeGuide: software facilitating the development of interactive behaviour change internet interventions 2009 Persuasive Technology and Digital Behaviour Intervention Symposium April 6-9, 2009 Edinburgh, UK
- Authors
- Corbett, T., Walsh, J. C., Groarke, A., Moss-Morris, R., Morrissey, E., & McGuire, B. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Corbett, Teresa
- ORCID
- Venue
- JMIR Cancer
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2017-07-04
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e8
- ISSN
- 2369-1999 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5516102
- OpenAlex
- W2728214660
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.12
- 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)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- 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-related fatigue, cancer survivors, online intervention, self-management, coping, self-regulation model, intervention development, user-centered design, feasibility trial, stakeholder engagement
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