Background: Step counts are increasingly used in public health and clinical research to assess well-being, lifestyle, and health status. However, estimating step counts using commercial activity trackers has several limitations, including a lack of reproducibility, generalizability, and scalability. Smartphones are a potentially promising alternative, but their step-counting algorithms require robust validation that accounts for temporal sensor body location, individual gait characteristics, and heterogeneous health states.
Objective: Our goal was to evaluate an open-source, step-counting method for smartphones under various measurement conditions against step counts estimated from data collected simultaneously from different body locations ("cross-body" validation), manually ascertained ground truth ("visually assessed" validation), and step counts from a commercial activity tracker (Fitbit Charge 2) in patients with advanced cancer ("commercial wearable" validation).
Methods: We used 8 independent data sets collected in controlled, semicontrolled, and free-living environments with different devices (primarily Android smartphones and wearable accelerometers) carried at typical body locations. A total of 5 data sets (n=103) were used for cross-body validation, 2 data sets (n=107) for visually assessed validation, and 1 data set (n=45) was used for commercial wearable validation. In each scenario, step counts were estimated using a previously published step-counting method for smartphones that uses raw subsecond-level accelerometer data. We calculated the mean bias and limits of agreement (LoA) between step count estimates and validation criteria using Bland-Altman analysis.
Results: In the cross-body validation data sets, participants performed 751.7 (SD 581.2) steps, and the mean bias was -7.2 (LoA -47.6, 33.3) steps, or -0.5%. In the visually assessed validation data sets, the ground truth step count was 367.4 (SD 359.4) steps, while the mean bias was -0.4 (LoA -75.2, 74.3) steps, or 0.1%. In the commercial wearable validation data set, Fitbit devices indicated mean step counts of 1931.2 (SD 2338.4), while the calculated bias was equal to -67.1 (LoA -603.8, 469.7) steps, or a difference of 3.4%.
Conclusions: This study demonstrates that our open-source, step-counting method for smartphone data provides reliable step counts across sensor locations, measurement scenarios, and populations, including healthy adults and patients with cancer.
Background: Young women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are part of a digitally connected generation yet are underserved in terms of information needs. YouTube is widely used to find and identify health information. The accessibility of health-related content on social media together with the rare and marginalized experiences of young women with MBC and the digital media practices of younger generations imply a considerable likelihood that young women with MBC will seek information and community on the internet.
Objective: This study aims to assess the content quality of MBC YouTube videos and to identify themes in the experiences of young women with MBC based on YouTube videos.
Methods: A systematic assessment of MBC YouTube videos using the search term "metastatic breast cancer young" was conducted in August 2021. The search was performed in an incognito browser and with no associated YouTube or Google account. Search results were placed in order from most to least views. Title, date uploaded, length, poster identity, number of likes, and number of comments were collected. Understandability and actionability were assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT); information reliability and quality were assessed with DISCERN. Themes, sponsorships, and health care professionals' and patients' narratives were reported.
Results: A total of 101 videos were identified. Of these, 78.2% (n=79) included sponsorships. The mean PEMAT scores were 78.8% (SD 15.3%) and 43.1% (SD 45.2%) for understandability and actionability, respectively. The mean DISCERN score was 2.44 (SD 0.7) out of 5. Identified themes included treatment (n=67, 66.3%), family relationship (n=46, 45.5%), and motherhood (n=38, 37.6%).
Conclusions: YouTube videos about young women with MBC are highly understandable but demonstrate moderate rates of actionability, with low reliability and quality scores. Many have a commercial bias. While web-based materials have limitations, their potential to provide patient support is not fully developed. By acknowledging their patients' media habits, health care professionals can further develop a trusting bond with their patients, provide a space for open and honest discussions of web-based materials, and avoid any potential instances of confusion caused by misleading, inaccurate, or false web-based materials.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the use of telehealth in cancer care and highlighted the potential of telehealth as a means of delivering the much-needed rehabilitation services for patients living with the side effects of cancer and its treatments.
Objective: This mixed methods study aims to explore patients' experiences of telehealth and their preferences regarding the use of telehealth for cancer rehabilitation to inform service development.
Methods: The study was completed in 2 phases from October 2020 to November 2021. In phase 1, an anonymous survey (web- and paper-based) exploring the need, benefits, barriers, facilitators, and preferences for telehealth cancer rehabilitation was distributed to survivors of cancer in Ireland. In phase 2, survivors of cancer were invited to participate in semistructured interviews exploring their experiences of telehealth and its role in cancer rehabilitation. Interviews were conducted via telephone or video call following an interview guide informed by the results of the survey and transcribed verbatim, and reflexive thematic analysis was performed using a qualitative descriptive approach.
Results: A total of 48 valid responses were received. The respondents were at a median of 26 (range 3-256) months after diagnosis, and 23 (48%) of the 48 participants had completed treatment. Of the 48 respondents, 31 (65%) reported using telehealth since the start of the pandemic, 15 (31%) reported having experience with web-based cancer rehabilitation, and 43 (90%) reported a willingness for web-based cancer rehabilitation. A total of 26 (54%) of the 48 respondents reported that their views on telehealth had changed positively since the start of the pandemic. Semistructured interviews were held with 18 survivors of cancer. The mean age of the participants was 58.9 (SD 8.24) years, 56% (10/18) of the participants were female, and 44% (8/18) of the participants were male. Reflexive thematic analysis identified 5 key themes: telehealth improves accessibility to cancer rehabilitation for some but is a barrier for others, lived experiences of the benefits of telehealth in survivorship, the value of in-person health care, telehealth in cancer care and COVID-19 (from novelty to normality), and the future of telehealth in cancer rehabilitation.
Conclusions: Telehealth is broadly welcomed as a mode of cancer rehabilitation for patients living with and beyond cancer in Ireland. However, issues regarding accessibility and the importance of in-person care must be acknowledged. Factors of convenience, time savings, and cost savings indicate that telehealth interventions are a desirable patient-centered method of delivering care when performed in suitable clinical contexts and with appropriate populations.
Background: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals.
Objective: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care.
Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability.
Results: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions.
Conclusions: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.
Background: Cancer survivors frequently experience cancer-related financial burdens. The extent to which Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Plus (LGBTQ+) populations experience cancer-related cost-coping behaviors such as crowdfunding is largely unknown, owing to a lack of sexual orientation and gender identity data collection and social stigma. Web-scraping has previously been used to evaluate inequities in online crowdfunding, but these methods alone do not adequately engage populations facing inequities.
Objective: We describe the methodological process of integrating technology-based and community-engaged methods to explore the financial burden of cancer among LGBTQ+ individuals via online crowdfunding.
Methods: To center the LGBTQ+ community, we followed community engagement guidelines by forming a study advisory board (SAB) of LGBTQ+ cancer survivors, caregivers, and professionals who were involved in every step of the research. SAB member engagement was tracked through quarterly SAB meeting attendance and an engagement survey. We then used web-scraping methods to extract a data set of online crowdfunding campaigns. The study team followed an integrated technology-based and community-engaged process to develop and refine term dictionaries for analyses. Term dictionaries were developed and refined in order to identify crowdfunding campaigns that were cancer- and LGBTQ+-related.
Results: Advisory board engagement was high according to metrics of meeting attendance, meeting participation, and anonymous board feedback. In collaboration with the SAB, the term dictionaries were iteratively edited and refined. The LGBTQ+ term dictionary was developed by the study team, while the cancer term dictionary was refined from an existing dictionary. The advisory board and analytic team members manually coded against the term dictionary and performed quality checks until high confidence in correct classification was achieved using pairwise agreement. Through each phase of manual coding and quality checks, the advisory board identified more misclassified campaigns than the analytic team alone. When refining the LGBTQ+ term dictionary, the analytic team identified 11.8% misclassification while the SAB identified 20.7% misclassification. Once each term dictionary was finalized, the LGBTQ+ term dictionary resulted in a 95% pairwise agreement, while the cancer term dictionary resulted in an 89.2% pairwise agreement.
Conclusions: The classification tools developed by integrating community-engaged and technology-based methods were more accurate because of the equity-based approach of centering LGBTQ+ voices and their lived experiences. This exemplar suggests integrating community-engaged and technology-based methods to study inequities is highly feasible and has applications beyond LGBTQ+ financial burden research.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：