Patient-Centered Innovations, Education and Technology for Cancer Care and Cancer Research
JMIR Cancer (JC) is a new peer-reviewed journal with a focus on education, innovation and technology in cancer care and cancer research, as well as in participatory and patient-centred approaches. A sister journal of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), a leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2014: 3.4), the scope of JC is broader and includes non-Internet approaches to improve cancer care and cancer research.
We invite submission of original research, viewpoints, reviews, tutorials, case studies, and non-conventional articles (e.g. open patient education material and software resources that are not yet evaluated but free for others to use/implement).
In our "Patients' Corner", we invite patients and survivors to submit short essays and viewpoints on all aspects of cancer, but in particular suggestions on how to improve the health care system, and suggestions for new technologies, applications and approaches (no article processing fees).
Articles published in JC will be submitted to PubMed and Pubmed Central. JC is open access and all articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
May 24, 2016
May 10, 2016
May 9, 2016
May 4, 2016
Mar 9, 2016
Feb 11, 2016
Dec 29, 2015
Nov 24, 2015
Nov 23, 2015
Sep 8, 2015
Aug 18, 2015
Aug 17, 2015
Citing this Article
Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)
Latest Submissions Open for Peer-Review:View All Open Peer Review Articles
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Web-Based Provider-initiated and Patient-Initiated Survivorship Care Planning for Cancer Patients
Date Submitted: May 6, 2016
Open Peer Review Period: May 7, 2016 - Jul 2, 2016
Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are intended to facilitate communication and coordination between patients, oncologists, and primary care providers (PCPs). While initial SCP approaches hav...
Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are intended to facilitate communication and coordination between patients, oncologists, and primary care providers (PCPs). While initial SCP approaches have focused on oncology providers initiating the SCP process, time and resource barriers have limited uptake. Objective: This trial compares the feasibility and value of two web-based SCP tools: provider-initiated vs. patient-initiated. Methods: This mixed-methods study recruited clinicians from two academically-affiliated community oncology practices. Eligible patients were treated by a participating oncologist, had non-metastatic cancer, completed acute treatment ≤ 2 months before enrollment, and had no evidence of disease. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either a provider-initiated or patient-initiated SCPs – both are web-based tools. We conducted qualitative interviews with providers at baseline and follow-up, and with patients 2 months after enrollment. In addition, patients were administered the Preparing for Life as a (New) Survivor (PLANS) and Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs (CaSUN) surveys at baseline and 2-months. Results: Of 39 providers approached, 13 (33%) enrolled. Providers/clinic staff required researcher assistance to identify eligible patients; 41 patients were randomized, of whom 25 completed follow-up (61%; 13 provider-initiated, 12 patient-initiated). Of the 25, 11 (44%) had initiated the SCP; 5 (20%) provided the SCP to their PCP. There were no statistically significant differences between study arms on the PLANS or CaSUN at baseline, follow-up, or change between baseline and follow-up. In qualitative interviews, providers and patients discussed SCPs’ value. Conclusions: Regardless of patient vs. provider initiated templates, and the web-based design of these tools, barriers to survivorship care planning persist. Further efforts should emphasize workflow functions for identifying and completing SCPs-- regardless of the SCP form used. Clinical Trial: Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02405819
Mixed Method Evaluation of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Educational Programming
Date Submitted: Mar 30, 2016
Open Peer Review Period: Apr 1, 2016 - May 27, 2016
Background: This mixed method evaluation considers the need for increased professional and patient education for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivorship. Due to the high incidence of late...
Background: This mixed method evaluation considers the need for increased professional and patient education for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivorship. Due to the high incidence of late effects of cancer treatment among AYA cancer survivors, knowledge sharing and communications are needed throughout the transition from cancer care into community care. AYA survivors are likely to need developmentally appropriate psychosocial care as well as extensive follow-on surveillance by physicians who are educated and aware of the likely chronic conditions and late effects that may occur in these patients. Digital technology including mobile apps, videos, and podcasts are important tools to support both AYA survivor and provider education. Objective: The objective of this mixed methods research was to evaluate the outcomes of the After Cancer Care Ends, Survivorship Starts for Adolescent and Young Adults (ACCESS AYA) programming. The intent of the ACCESS AYA program was to build health literacy around AYA survivorship issues and to stimulate improved communications between survivors and healthcare providers. The paper addresses the central research question of “How did the ACCESS AYA program increase health literacy, communications, and understanding among AYA survivors and providers?” Included in the evaluation were use of an iPhone app “AYA Healthy Survivorship” and a companion website with digital media developed for the project. Methods: This mixed methods evaluation included a brief quantitative survey of participants’ awareness and effectiveness of the ACCESS AYA project combined with in-depth qualitative interviews based on a general interview guide tailored to the different types of evaluation participants. The evaluation used the Atlas Ti™ qualitative database and software for coding and key word analyses. Inter-rater reliability analyses were assessed using Cohen’s Kappa analysis using Stata 12.1 software Results: Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as high, there were 22 respondents who rated their level of awareness of the project with a mean 3.2 (CI 3.02:3.45). Participants rated effectiveness with a mean of 4 (CI 3.72:4.27). In the qualitative evaluation, key coding themes included survivor wellbeing, healthcare professional education, cancer advocates role and education, Seton hospital and community-based resources and the role of societal support. The inter-rater reliability scores (ranging from 1 to minus 1) for the First Cycle coding was .893, and .784 for the Second Cycle. The Cohen kappa scores were derived using Stata 12.1 statistical analysis software. Conclusions: This case study offers a substantive contribution to understanding the AYA survivor community and to the healthcare professionals and advocates who aid them in their efforts to a new “normal” life and wellbeing in their survivorship. The results of the evaluation highlight the need to continue to build both survivor and professional resources to address the unique impact of cancer on AYA cancer survivors.