The purpose of this project is to develop and test an integrated mHealth learning program (L-mHealth program) for gynecological cancer that integrates effective educational strategies and mobile health application to meet the learning needs of Taiwanese Women with Gynecological Cancer (WGC) through the process of co-creation, with the active input of WGC and experts' directly impacting content and design. This project was to develop the L-mHealth system and prototype of a smartphone app for WGC through the process of co-creation, with the active input of WGC and experts' directly impacting content and design.
Conditions
Conditions (1)
Free-text conditions as registered, with the CancerIndex entity they were reconciled to and the match type.
Condition (as posted)
Mapped entity
Match
Confidence
Mobile Health
—
UNRESOLVED
—
Interventions
Interventions (1)
Intervention
Type
Mapped drug
Match
L-mHealth program
Other
—
UNRESOLVED
Design
Arms and outcomes
Arms (2)
type
EXPERIMENTAL
label
The intervention group
description
The intervention group will receive the L-mHealth program along with routine care, which includes the "L-mHealth APP" This app is complemented by an "Online Community Support System" and the "LINE Instant Messaging Software."
interventionNames
Other: L-mHealth program
type
NO_INTERVENTION
label
The control group
description
The control group receiving care as usual alone.
Primary outcomes (21)
measure
Symptom Distress
timeFrame
Data were collected at baseline.
description
The research project assessed changes in symptom distress by Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF) .
Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF), revised by Lai (1998), for the symptom assessment of ovarian cancer patients. The scale is adapted from the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) developed by McCorkle and Young (1978) for lung cancer patients. The scoring method uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess the level of symptom distress as self-reported by cancer patients. A score of 1 indicates no distress at all, 2 indicates mild distress, 3 indicates moderate distress, 4 indicates severe distress, and 5 indicates very severe distress. The total score ranges from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating more severe symptom distress. The Cronbach's alpha value for cervical cancer patients in our country was 0.87, and the content validity was 0.92 (Chen et al., 2007).
Eligibility
Eligibility (as posted)
Sex
Female
Minimum age
20 Years
Maximum age
70 Years
Show eligibility criteria text
Inclusion Criteria:
1. Women definitively or suspected to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer, with the cancer staged at Stage 3 or below.
2. Women receiving surgery, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy at the recruiting hospital.
3.20 to 70 years old. 4.Possesses and is able to use an internet-enabled mobile device (such as a smartphone or tablet).
5.Able to clearly communicate and read/write in Mandarin or Taiwanese. 6.Agrees to participate in the study and signs the informed consent form.
Exclusion Criteria:
1. History of other malignant tumors.
2. Intellectual disability or mental disorders.
References
Publications (34)
RESULTAmerican Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures.Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/ 2018.
RESULTAass N, Fossa SD, Dahl AA, Moe TJ. Prevalence of anxiety and depression in cancer patients seen at the Norwegian Radium Hospital. Eur J Cancer. 1997 Sep;33(10):1597-604. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(97)00054-3. PMID 9389921
RESULTAbras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. User-centered design. Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 2004; 37(4), 445-456.
RESULTAkkuzu G, Kurt G, Guvenc G, Kok G, Simsek S, Dogrusoy S, Ayhan A. Learning Needs of Gynecologic Cancer Survivors. J Cancer Educ. 2018 Jun;33(3):544-550. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1118-y. PMID 27743314
RESULTAthilingam P, Labrador MA, Remo EF, Mack L, San Juan AB, Elliott AF. Features and usability assessment of a patient-centered mobile application (HeartMapp) for self-management of heart failure. Appl Nurs Res. 2016 Nov;32:156-163. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2016.07.001. Epub 2016 Jul 11. PMID 27969021
RESULTBandura, A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. 2006; 5(1), 307-337.
RESULTBangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies.2009; 4(3), 114-123.
RESULTBoyce, C., & Neale, P. Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. 2006.
RESULTBricker JB, Mull KE, Kientz JA, Vilardaga R, Mercer LD, Akioka KJ, Heffner JL. Randomized, controlled pilot trial of a smartphone app for smoking cessation using acceptance and commitment therapy. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014 Oct 1;143:87-94. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.07.006. Epub 2014 Jul 17. PMID 25085225
measure
Symptom Distress
timeFrame
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in symptom distress by Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF) .
Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF), revised by Lai (1998), for the symptom assessment of ovarian cancer patients. The scale is adapted from the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) developed by McCorkle and Young (1978) for lung cancer patients. The scoring method uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess the level of symptom distress as self-reported by cancer patients. A score of 1 indicates no distress at all, 2 indicates mild distress, 3 indicates moderate distress, 4 indicates severe distress, and 5 indicates very severe distress. The total score ranges from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating more severe symptom distress.The Cronbach's alpha value for cervical cancer patients in our country was 0.87, and the content validity was 0.92 (Chen et al., 2007).
measure
Symptom Distress
timeFrame
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in symptom distress by Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF).
Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF), revised by Lai (1998), for the symptom assessment of ovarian cancer patients. The scale is adapted from the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) developed by McCorkle and Young (1978) for lung cancer patients. The scoring method uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess the level of symptom distress as self-reported by cancer patients. A score of 1 indicates no distress at all, 2 indicates mild distress, 3 indicates moderate distress, 4 indicates severe distress, and 5 indicates very severe distress. The total score ranges from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating more severe symptom distress. The Cronbach's alpha value for cervical cancer patients in our country was 0.87, and the content validity was 0.92 (Chen et al., 2007).
measure
Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy for cancer
timeFrame
Data were collected at baseline.
description
The research project assessed changes in communication and attitudinal self-efficacy for cancer by Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE).
The "Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy Scale for Cancer (CASE)," originally designed by Wolf et al. (2005) and translated by Yang (2005). The scale comprises three major dimensions: the ability to understand and participate in care, the ability to maintain a positive attitude, and the ability to seek and obtain information, totaling 12 items. The scoring uses a Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1 point) to strongly agree (5 points). The reliability of the scale, as measured by internal consistency, shows a Cronbach's α value ranging from 0.80 to 0.95 across the different dimensions.
measure
Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy for cancer
timeFrame
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in communication and attitudinal self-efficacy for cancer by Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE) .
The "Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy Scale for Cancer (CASE)," originally designed by Wolf et al. (2005) and translated by Yang (2005). The scale comprises three major dimensions: the ability to understand and participate in care, the ability to maintain a positive attitude, and the ability to seek and obtain information, totaling 12 items. The scoring uses a Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1 point) to strongly agree (5 points). The reliability of the scale, as measured by internal consistency, shows a Cronbach's α value ranging from 0.80 to 0.95 across the different dimensions.
measure
Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy for cancer
timeFrame
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in communication and attitudinal self-efficacy for cancer by Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE).
The "Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy Scale for Cancer (CASE)," originally designed by Wolf et al. (2005) and translated by Yang (2005). The scale comprises three major dimensions: the ability to understand and participate in care, the ability to maintain a positive attitude, and the ability to seek and obtain information, totaling 12 items. The scoring uses a Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1 point) to strongly agree (5 points). The reliability of the scale, as measured by internal consistency, shows a Cronbach's α value ranging from 0.80 to 0.95 across the different dimensions.
measure
Needs of Health Information for the patients with Gynecological Cancer
timeFrame
Data were collected at baseline.
description
The research project assessed changes in needs of health information for the patients with gynecological cancer by Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer.
The study utilizes the Chinese version of Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer, adapted by Lei, Har, \& Abdullah (2011) from the "Toronto Informational Needs Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (TINQ-BC)," and used with the authors' permission (Huang \& Hsieh, 2015). The Chinese version for gynecologic cancer patients was modified from 52 to 50 items, with a scoring system ranging from 1 ('Not needed at all') to 5 ('Greatly needed'). Higher scores indicate a greater need for the information in that item. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales range from 0.835 to 0.958 (Chen \& Hsieh, 2017). The Content Validity Index (CVI) values for expert validity range from 0.75 to 0.94 (Hsieh et al., 2018; Huang \& Hsieh, 2015)."
measure
Needs of Health Information for the patients with Gynecological Cancer
timeFrame
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in needs of health information for the patients with gynecological cancer by Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer .
The study utilizes the Chinese version of Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer, adapted by Lei, Har, \& Abdullah (2011) from the "Toronto Informational Needs Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (TINQ-BC)," and used with the authors' permission (Huang \& Hsieh, 2015). The Chinese version for gynecologic cancer patients was modified from 52 to 50 items, with a scoring system ranging from 1 ('Not needed at all') to 5 ('Greatly needed'). Higher scores indicate a greater need for the information in that item.The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales range from 0.835 to 0.958 (Chen \& Hsieh, 2017). The Content Validity Index (CVI) values for expert validity range from 0.75 to 0.94 (Hsieh et al., 2018; Huang \& Hsieh, 2015)."
measure
Needs of Health Information for the patients with Gynecological Cancer
timeFrame
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in needs of health information for the patients with gynecological cancer by Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer.
The study utilizes the Chinese version of Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer, adapted by Lei, Har, \& Abdullah (2011) from the "Toronto Informational Needs Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (TINQ-BC)," and used with the authors' permission (Huang \& Hsieh, 2015). The Chinese version for gynecologic cancer patients was modified from 52 to 50 items, with a scoring system ranging from 1 ('Not needed at all') to 5 ('Greatly needed'). Higher scores indicate a greater need for the information in that item. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales range from 0.835 to 0.958 (Chen \& Hsieh, 2017). The Content Validity Index (CVI) values for expert validity range from 0.75 to 0.94 (Hsieh et al., 2018; Huang \& Hsieh, 2015)."
measure
Chatbot Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at baseline.
description
The research project assessed changes in chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ).
The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) was developed by Holmes et al. (2019) based on principles of user experience with chatbots. It is similar in design to the System Usability Scale (SUS) by Brooke (1996) but was specifically developed for assessing chatbot usability. The questionnaire consists of 16 items, with 8 related to positive aspects of chatbot usability and 8 related to negative aspects. It uses a 5-point Likert scale for users to rate the chatbot's usability, where 1 indicates strong disagreement, 2 disagreement, 3 neutrality, 4 agreement, and 5 strong agreement. The scores are standardized on a scale of 100 points.The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) demonstrates good internal consistency (r \> 0.7) (Holmes et al., 2023).
measure
Chatbot Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) .
The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) was developed by Holmes et al. (2019) based on principles of user experience with chatbots. It is similar in design to the System Usability Scale (SUS) by Brooke (1996) but was specifically developed for assessing chatbot usability. The questionnaire consists of 16 items, with 8 related to positive aspects of chatbot usability and 8 related to negative aspects. It uses a 5-point Likert scale for users to rate the chatbot's usability, where 1 indicates strong disagreement, 2 disagreement, 3 neutrality, 4 agreement, and 5 strong agreement. The scores are standardized on a scale of 100 points. The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) demonstrates good internal consistency (r \> 0.7) (Holmes et al., 2023).
measure
Chatbot Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) from baseline to 3 months after the Interventions.
The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) was developed by Holmes et al. (2019) based on principles of user experience with chatbots. It is similar in design to the System Usability Scale (SUS) by Brooke (1996) but was specifically developed for assessing chatbot usability. The questionnaire consists of 16 items, with 8 related to positive aspects of chatbot usability and 8 related to negative aspects. It uses a 5-point Likert scale for users to rate the chatbot's usability, where 1 indicates strong disagreement, 2 disagreement, 3 neutrality, 4 agreement, and 5 strong agreement. The scores are standardized on a scale of 100 points.The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) demonstrates good internal consistency (r \> 0.7) (Holmes et al., 2023).
measure
System Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at baseline.
description
The research project assessed changes in system usability by System Usability Scale (SUS) .
The System Usability Scale (SUS), originally proposed by Brooke in 1986 (Brooke, 1996). The SUS consists of 10 items, scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Strongly agree is scored as 5 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. For positively worded items, the score is calculated by subtracting 1 from the item score, while for negatively worded items, the score is obtained by subtracting the item score from 5. The total SUS score is then calculated by summing the item scores and multiplying by 2.5, yielding a final score that can be categorized into six grades: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), and F (0-59) according to Bangor, Kortum, and Miller (2009).
measure
System Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in system usability by System Usability Scale (SUS) .
The System Usability Scale (SUS), originally proposed by Brooke in 1986 (Brooke, 1996). The SUS consists of 10 items, scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Strongly agree is scored as 5 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. For positively worded items, the score is calculated by subtracting 1 from the item score, while for negatively worded items, the score is obtained by subtracting the item score from 5. The total SUS score is then calculated by summing the item scores and multiplying by 2.5, yielding a final score that can be categorized into six grades: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), and F (0-59) according to Bangor, Kortum, and Miller (2009).
measure
System Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in system usability by System Usability Scale (SUS) .
The System Usability Scale (SUS), originally proposed by Brooke in 1986 (Brooke, 1996). The SUS consists of 10 items, scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Strongly agree is scored as 5 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. For positively worded items, the score is calculated by subtracting 1 from the item score, while for negatively worded items, the score is obtained by subtracting the item score from 5. The total SUS score is then calculated by summing the item scores and multiplying by 2.5, yielding a final score that can be categorized into six grades: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), and F (0-59) according to Bangor, Kortum, and Miller (2009).
measure
mHealth App Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at baseline.
description
The research project assessed changes in mHealth App usability by mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) .
This study chose to use the 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) (Zhou et al., 2009). Strongly agree is scored as 7 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. The MAUQ has demonstrated good reliability and validity during its development process. In terms of internal consistency, the three subscales-Ease of Use and Satisfaction (MAUQ\_E), System Information Arrangement (MAUQ\_S), and Usefulness (MAUQ\_U)-have Cronbach's α values of 0.895, 0.829, and 0.900, respectively.
measure
mHealth App Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in mHealth App usability by mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ).
This study chose to use the 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) (Zhou et al., 2009). Strongly agree is scored as 7 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. The MAUQ has demonstrated good reliability and validity during its development process. In terms of internal consistency, the three subscales-Ease of Use and Satisfaction (MAUQ\_E), System Information Arrangement (MAUQ\_S), and Usefulness (MAUQ\_U)-have Cronbach's α values of 0.895, 0.829, and 0.900, respectively.
measure
mHealth App Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in mHealth App usability by mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) from baseline to 3 months after the Interventions.
This study chose to use the 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) (Zhou et al., 2009). Strongly agree is scored as 7 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. The MAUQ has demonstrated good reliability and validity during its development process. In terms of internal consistency, the three subscales-Ease of Use and Satisfaction (MAUQ\_E), System Information Arrangement (MAUQ\_S), and Usefulness (MAUQ\_U)-have Cronbach's α values of 0.895, 0.829, and 0.900, respectively.
measure
Bot Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at baseline.
description
The research project assessed changes in Chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Scale(BUS).
This study utilizes the Chatbot Usability Scale (BUS-11) developed by Borsci et al. (2023) to assess chatbot usability. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score ranges from 11 to 55, with higher scores indicating greater user satisfaction with the chatbot's usability (Borsci et al., 2023).The Cronbach's alpha value is 0.90, indicating a high level of internal consistency among the items in the scale (Borsci et al., 2023).
measure
Bot Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in Chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Scale(BUS).
This study utilizes the Chatbot Usability Scale (BUS-11) developed by Borsci et al. (2023) to assess chatbot usability. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score ranges from 11 to 55, with higher scores indicating greater user satisfaction with the chatbot's usability (Borsci et al., 2023).The Cronbach's alpha value is 0.90, indicating a high level of internal consistency among the items in the scale (Borsci et al., 2023).
measure
Bot Usability
timeFrame
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
description
The research project assessed changes in Chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Scale(BUS) from baseline to 3 months after the Interventions.
This study utilizes the Chatbot Usability Scale (BUS-11) developed by Borsci et al. (2023) to assess chatbot usability. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score ranges from 11 to 55, with higher scores indicating greater user satisfaction with the chatbot's usability (Borsci et al., 2023).The Cronbach's alpha value is 0.90, indicating a high level of internal consistency among the items in the scale (Borsci et al., 2023).
RESULTBroderick, J., Devine, T., Langhans, E., Lemerise, A. J., Lier, S., & Harris, L. Designing health literate mobile apps: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies Washington, DC.2014.
RESULTBrooke, J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 4-7.1996.
RESULTChaudry, B. M., Connelly, K. H., Siek, K. A., & Welch, J. L. Mobile interface design for low-literacy populations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT international health informatics symposium.2012.
RESULTFaller H, Koch U, Brahler E, Harter M, Keller M, Schulz H, Wegscheider K, Weis J, Boehncke A, Hund B, Reuter K, Richard M, Sehner S, Szalai C, Wittchen HU, Mehnert A. Satisfaction with information and unmet information needs in men and women with cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2016 Feb;10(1):62-70. doi: 10.1007/s11764-015-0451-1. Epub 2015 May 9. PMID 25956402
RESULTFischer OJ, Marguerie M, Brotto LA. Sexual Function, Quality of Life, and Experiences of Women with Ovarian Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Study. Sex Med. 2019 Dec;7(4):530-539. doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2019.07.005. Epub 2019 Sep 7. PMID 31501030
RESULTHevner, A. R. A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian journal of information systems. 2007;19(2), 4.
RESULTHolmes, S., Bond, R., Moorhead, A., Zheng, J., Coates, V., & McTear, M.Towards Validating a Chatbot Usability Scale Design, User Experience, and Usability: 12th International Conference, DUXU 2023, Held as Part of the 25th HCI International Conference, HCII 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 23-28, 2023, Proceedings, Part IV, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35708-4_24
RESULTHolmes, S., Moorhead, A., Bond, R., Zheng, H., Coates, V., & McTear, M. Usability testing of a healthcare chatbot: Can we use conventional methods to assess conversational user interfaces?. In Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2019. (pp. 207-214).
RESULTHsieh LY, Chou FJ, Guo SE. Information needs of patients with lung cancer from diagnosis until first treatment follow-up. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 21;13(6):e0199515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199515. eCollection 2018. PMID 29928027
RESULTSekse RJT, Dunberger G, Olesen ML, Osterbye M, Seibaek L. Lived experiences and quality of life after gynaecological cancer-An integrative review. J Clin Nurs. 2019 May;28(9-10):1393-1421. doi: 10.1111/jocn.14721. Epub 2019 Jan 11. PMID 30461101
RESULTKav S, Tokdemir G, Tasdemir R, Yalili A, Dinc D. Patients with cancer and their relatives beliefs, information needs and information-seeking behavior about cancer and treatment. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(12):6027-32. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.12.6027. PMID 23464398
RESULTLiavaag AH, Dorum A, Fossa SD, Trope C, Dahl AA. Controlled study of fatigue, quality of life, and somatic and mental morbidity in epithelial ovarian cancer survivors: how lucky are the lucky ones? J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 20;25(15):2049-56. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1769. PMID 17513809
RESULTMaguire R, Kotronoulas G, Simpson M, Paterson C. A systematic review of the supportive care needs of women living with and beyond cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Mar;136(3):478-90. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.030. Epub 2014 Nov 20. PMID 25462200
RESULTMcCorkle R, Quint-Benoliel J. Symptom distress, current concerns and mood disturbance after diagnosis of life-threatening disease. Soc Sci Med. 1983;17(7):431-8. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(83)90348-9. PMID 6867788
RESULTMcCorkle R, Young K. Development of a symptom distress scale. Cancer Nurs. 1978 Oct;1(5):373-8. No abstract available. PMID 250445
RESULTMeeringa, R. S. What does value-in-use assessment add to usability assessment of an artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes patients in the Netherlands with different treatment conditions? An experimental study in medical innovation management. University of Twente. 2016.
RESULTNorman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006 Nov 14;8(4):e27. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27. PMID 17213046
RESULTReb AM, Cope DG. Quality of Life and Supportive Care Needs of Gynecologic Cancer Survivors. West J Nurs Res. 2019 Oct;41(10):1385-1406. doi: 10.1177/0193945919846901. Epub 2019 May 12. PMID 31079566
RESULTRyu, Y. S., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2006). Reliability and validity of the mobile phone usability questionnaire (MPUQ). Journal of usability studies. 2006; 2(1), 39-53.
RESULTSchnall R, Rojas M, Bakken S, Brown W, Carballo-Dieguez A, Carry M, Gelaude D, Mosley JP, Travers J. A user-centered model for designing consumer mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps). J Biomed Inform. 2016 Apr;60:243-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.02.002. Epub 2016 Feb 20. PMID 26903153
RESULTSchulman-Green D, Bradley EH, Nicholson NR Jr, George E, Indeck A, McCorkle R. One step at a time: self-management and transitions among women with ovarian cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2012 Jul;39(4):354-60. doi: 10.1188/12.ONF.354-360. PMID 22750893
RESULTSekse RJ, Blaaka G, Buestad I, Tengesdal E, Paulsen A, Vika M. Education and counselling group intervention for women treated for gynaecological cancer: does it help? Scand J Caring Sci. 2014 Mar;28(1):112-21. doi: 10.1111/scs.12024. Epub 2013 Jan 15. PMID 23317287
RESULTSimon JA, Kokot-Kierepa M, Goldstein J, Nappi RE. Vaginal health in the United States: results from the Vaginal Health: Insights, Views & Attitudes survey. Menopause. 2013 Oct;20(10):1043-8. doi: 10.1097/GME.0b013e318287342d. PMID 23571518
RESULTTayor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. Introduction to qualitative research methods: London: Wilsy.1984.
RESULTVistad I, Fossa SD, Kristensen GB, Dahl AA. Chronic fatigue and its correlates in long-term survivors of cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy. BJOG. 2007 Sep;114(9):1150-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01445.x. Epub 2007 Jul 26. PMID 17655733