Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Monitoring symptoms at home: what methods would cancer patients be comfortable using?

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to determine which methods of remote symptom assessment cancer outpatients would be comfortable using, including those involving information technology, and whether this varied with age and gender.

Methods

A questionnaire survey of 477 outpatients attending the Edinburgh Cancer Centre in Edinburgh, UK.

Results

Most patients reported that they would not feel comfortable using methods involving technology such as a secure website, email, mobile phone text message, or a computer voice on the telephone but that they would be more comfortable using more traditional methods such as a paper questionnaire, speaking to a nurse on the telephone, or giving information in person.

Conclusions

The uptake of new, potentially cost-effective technology-based methods of monitoring patients’ symptoms at home might be limited by patients’ initial discomfort with the idea of using them. It will be important to develop methods of addressing this potential barrier (such as detailed explanation and supervised practice) if these methods are to be successfully implemented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Rose, M., & Bezjak, A. (2009). Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: An overview and practical examples. Quality of Life Research, 18, 125–136. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9436-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Davalos, M. E., French, M. T., Burdick, A. E., & Simmons, S. C. (2010). Economic evaluation of telemedicine: Review of the literature and research guidelines for benefit-cost analysis. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, 15, 933–948. doi:10.1089=tmj.2009.0067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedman, R. (1998). Automated telephone conversations to assess health behavior and deliver behavioral interventions. Journal of Medical Systems, 22, 95–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pare, G., Mirou, J., & Sicotte, C. (2007). Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: The evidence base. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14, 269–277. doi:10.1197/jamia.172270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Newman, M. (2004). Technology and psychotherapy: An introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 141–145. doi:10.1002/jclp.10240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pinnock, H., Slack, R., Pagliari, C., Price, D., & Sheikh, A. (2006). Professional and patient attitudes to using mobile phone technology to monitor asthma: Questionnaire survey. Primary Care Respiratory Journal, 15, 237–245. doi:10.1016/j.pcrj.2006.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carlson, L. E., Speca, M., Hagen, N., & Taenzer, P. (2001). Computerized quality-of-life screening in a cancer pain clinic. Journal of Palliative Care, 17, 46–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bielli, E., Carminati, F., La Capra, S., Lina, M., Brunelli, C., & Tamburini, M. (2004). Wireless Health Outcomes Monitoring System (WHOMS): Development and field testing with cancer patients using mobile phones. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 4, 7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Werner, P., & Karnieli, E. (2003). A model of the willingness to use telemedicine for routine and specialized care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9, 264–272. doi:10.1258/135763303769211274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahmad, F., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Skinner, H. (2008). Assessing patient attitudes to computerized screening in primary care: Psychometric properties of the computerized lifestyle assessment scale. JMIR, 10, e11. doi:10.2196/jmir.955.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eikelboom, R., & Atlas, M. (2005). Attitude to telemedicine, and willingness to use it, in audiology patients. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11(S2), 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brick, J., Bashshur, R., Brick, J., & D’Alessandri, R. (1997). Public knowledge, perception, and expressed choice of telemedicine in rural West Virginia. Telemedicine Journal, 3, 159–171.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kearney, N., McCann, L., Norrie, J., Taylor, L., Gray, P., McGee-Lennon, M., et al. (2009). Evaluation of a mobile phone-based, advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) in the management of chemotherapy-related toxicity. Supportive Care in Cancer, 17, 437–444. doi:10.1007/s00520-008-0515-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bush, N., Donaldson, G., Moinpour, C., Haberman, M., Milliken, D., Markle, V., et al. (2005). Development, feasibility and compliance of a web-based system for very frequent QOL and symptom home self-assessment after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Quality of Life Research, 14, 77–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wolpin, S., Berry, D., Austin-Seymour, M., Bush, N., Fann, J. R., Halpenny, B., et al. (2008). Acceptability of an electronic self-report assessment program for patients with cancer. CIN-Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 26, 332–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Demiris, G., Speedie, S., & Finkelstein, S. (2001). Change of patients’ perceptions of telehomecare. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, 7, 241–248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychological Medicine Research, School of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Kennedy Tower, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh, EH10 5HF, UK

    Annet Kleiboer, Katie Gowing, Christian Holm Hansen, Carina Hibberd, Laura Hodges, Jane Walker, Parvez Thekkumpurath, Mark O’Connor, Gordon Murray & Michael Sharpe

Authors
  1. Annet Kleiboer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katie Gowing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Holm Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carina Hibberd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Hodges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jane Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Parvez Thekkumpurath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mark O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Gordon Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael Sharpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annet Kleiboer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kleiboer, A., Gowing, K., Holm Hansen, C. et al. Monitoring symptoms at home: what methods would cancer patients be comfortable using?. Qual Life Res 19, 965–968 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9662-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9662-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation