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.
Dec 29, 2015
Nov 24, 2015
Nov 23, 2015
Sep 8, 2015
Aug 18, 2015
Aug 17, 2015
Jun 26, 2015
Jun 25, 2015
May 18, 2015
Apr 14, 2015
Apr 2, 2015
Mar 9, 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
Online versus Telephone Methods to Recruit and Interview Older Gay and Bisexual Men: Findings from the Restore Study
Date Submitted: Jan 28, 2016
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 28, 2016 - Mar 24, 2016
Recently, we faced the challenge of conflicting recommendations for online versus traditional methods to recruit and interview older, sexual minority men. Older populations represent the cohort least...
Recently, we faced the challenge of conflicting recommendations for online versus traditional methods to recruit and interview older, sexual minority men. Older populations represent the cohort least likely to be online where more traditional approaches such as telephone or in-person interviews are commonly employed. By contrast, gay and bisexual men represent a population of early adopters of new technology, both in general and for medical research. In a study of older gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer, we asked whether respondents preferred online versus offline methods for data collection. Given the paucity of research on how to recruit older gay and bisexual men, in general; and older gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer, in particular; we conducted an observational study to identify participant preferences when participating in research studies. To test online versus offline recruitment demographic data collection, and interview preferences of older gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer. Email blasts were sent from a website providing support services for gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer, supplemented with an email invitation from the web-host. All invitations provided information both on the study website address, and a 1-800 phone number. Described study tasks included being screened, consented, completing a short survey collecting demographic data, and a 60-75 minute telephone or chat interview. All materials stressed enrollees could participate in each task either using online methods or by telephone whichever they preferred. In all, 74 men were screened into the study and 30 interviewed. Average age of the participants was 63 years (SD=6.9; Range 48-75 years) residing in 14 states and one, temporarily located overseas. For screening, consent, and the collection of demographic data, 29 of 30 (97%) participants completed these tasks using online methods. For the interview, 29 of 30 (97%) chose to be interviewed by telephone, not chat. Older gay and bisexual men, when given choices, appear to prefer a mixed methods approach to qualitative investigations. For most aspects of the study, the older men chose online methods; the exception was the interview where almost all preferred telephone. We speculate that some combination of the deeply personal nature of the topic (sexual effects of prostate cancer treatment), unfamiliarity with online chat, and possibly the subject burden involved in extensive typing contributed to preferring telephone over online chat. Recruitment of older men into this study showed good geographic diversity. We recommend other qualitative researchers to consider a mixed methods approach when recruiting older populations online.