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 2015: 4.532), 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).
JC is open access and all articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Jan 6, 2017
Dec 15, 2016
Nov 9, 2016
Sep 19, 2016
Sep 14, 2016
Aug 30, 2016
Aug 25, 2016
Aug 19, 2016
Jul 19, 2016
Jun 7, 2016
May 31, 2016
May 24, 2016
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
Healthcare providers’ knowledge of HPV vaccination, barriers, and strategies in a state with low HPV vaccine receipt
Date Submitted: Jan 17, 2017
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 18, 2017 - Mar 15, 2017
Background: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is below national goals in the United States. Healthcare providers are on the forefront of improving vaccination in the US given their close interact...
Background: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is below national goals in the United States. Healthcare providers are on the forefront of improving vaccination in the US given their close interactions with patients and parents. Objective: This study aimed to assess associations between provider demographic and practice characteristics with knowledge of HPV vaccination and HPV vaccine guidelines. Furthermore, our objective was to contextualize providers’ perceptions of barriers to HPV vaccination and strategies for improving vaccination in a state with low HPV vaccine receipt. Methods: In this mixed methods study, participating providers (N=254) were recruited from statewide pediatric, family medicine, and nursing organizations in Utah. Participants completed an online survey of demographics, practice characteristics, HPV vaccine knowledge (≤10 correct vs. 11-12 correct answers), and knowledge of HPV vaccine guidelines (correct vs. incorrect). Demographic and practice characteristics were compared using chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests for HPV knowledge outcomes. Four open-ended questions pertaining to barriers and strategies for improving HPV vaccination were content analyzed. Results: Family practice providers (52.21%, p=0.001), institutional/university clinics (54.05%, p=0.001) and busier clinics seeing 20-29 patients per day (50.00%, p=0.038) had the highest proportion of respondents with high HPV vaccination knowledge. Older providers aged 40-49 years (85.07%, p=0.042) and those who were a Vaccines for Children provider (78.70%, p=0.026) had the highest proportion of respondents with high knowledge of HPV vaccine recommendations. Providers perceived lack of parental education to be the main barrier to HPV vaccination. Providers endorsed stronger, consistent, and more direct provider recommendations for HPV vaccination delivered to parents through printed materials available in clinical settings and public health campaigns. Hesitancy to recommend the HPV vaccine to patients persisted amongst some providers. Conclusions: Providers require support to eliminate barriers to recommending HPV vaccination in clinical settings. Providers endorsed needing parental educational materials and instructions on framing HPV vaccination as a priority cancer prevention mechanism for all adolescents.
The impact of participation in online cancer communities on patient reported outcomes. A systematic review.
Date Submitted: Jan 12, 2017
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 18, 2017 - Mar 15, 2017
Background: The concept of ‘online community’ has developed in recent years as a result of improved technical possibilities. By participating, people gain insight into their illness and as members...
Background: The concept of ‘online community’ has developed in recent years as a result of improved technical possibilities. By participating, people gain insight into their illness and as members they usually search for others in comparable circumstances. The effect of participating in online communities on different outcomes of interest, has increasingly been investigated. Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically review all available literature concerning changes in patient reported outcomes (PROs) when cancer patients participate in online communities and the characteristics of patients who report positive effects. Methods: A computerized search of the literature via PubMed and Science Direct was performed. Last search was april 2016. Articles were included with the the following terms: cancer, patients, support group, health communities, internet. Twentyone articles were selected and were subjected to a 11-item quality checklist independently by two investigators. Results: The methodological quality of the selected studies varied; 12 were of high quality, 8 adequate and only 1 of low quality. Respondents were mostly women with breast cancer with a mean age of 50. Patients who are active online were mostly younger and higher educated than the non-users. The investigated PROs ranged from screening for general wellbeing (i.e. mood or health) through depression, anxiety, quality of life and post-traumatic growth, to cancer-related concerns. The effects found - i.e. PRO improvements - were overall marginal, in most cases insignificant and sometimes contradictory. Conclusions: Discussion: The big problem for this kind of studies is the lack of methodological instruments for reliable measuring. Conclusion: Some patients need online communities or online interaction, but do not expect to measure effects in PROs. If cancer survivors want to meet other survivors and share information or get support, online communities are a trustful possibility to make this happen.
Development, Feasibility, and Small-Scale Implementation of a Web-based Prognostic Tool - SEER*CSC
Date Submitted: Dec 7, 2016
Open Peer Review Period: Dec 8, 2016 - Feb 2, 2017
Background: Population data sets and the Internet are playing an ever-growing role in the way cancer information is made available to providers, patients, and their caregivers. The Surveillance, Epide...
Background: Population data sets and the Internet are playing an ever-growing role in the way cancer information is made available to providers, patients, and their caregivers. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Survival Calculator (SEER*CSC) is a cancer prognostic tool that uses SEER data, a large population data set, to provide physicians with highly valid, evidence-based prognostic estimates for increasing shared decision making and improving patient-provider communication of complex health information. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop, test, and implement a web-based cancer prognostic tool. Methods: An iterative approach was used to develop the SEER*CSC. Based on input from cancer patient advocacy groups and physicians, an initial version of the tool was developed. Next, providers from four healthcare delivery systems were recruited to do formal usability testing of the SEER*CSC tool. A revised version of the tool was then implemented in two healthcare delivery sites using a real world clinical implementation approach, and usage data was collected. Post-implementation follow-up interviews were also conducted with site champions. Finally, patients from two cancer advocacy groups participated in usability testing. Results: Overall feedback of the tool from both providers and patients was positive, with providers noting the site was professional and reliable, and patients finding the site to be informational and helpful to use when discussing their diagnosis with their provider. However, the use during the small-scale implementation was low. Reasons for low usage included time to enter data, not having treatment options in the tool, and the tool not being incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Patients found the language in its current version to be too complex. Conclusions: The implementation and usability results showed that participants were enthusiastic about the use and features of SEER*CSC, but sustained implementation in a real world clinical setting faced significant challenges. As a result of this testing, the tool is being redesigned with more accessible language for a public facing release. Meta-tools, which put different tools in context of each other, are needed to assist in understanding the strengths and limitations of various tools and their place in the clinical decision making pathway. The continued development and eventual release of the tools should include feedback from multidisciplinary healthcare teams, various stakeholder groups, patients, and caregivers. Clinical Trial: National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, grant number P20 CA137219