Greenberry Taylor

Background: The number of adults entering higher-risk age groups for receiving a cancer diagnosis is rising, with predicted numbers of cancer cases expected to increase by nearly 50% by 2050. Living with cancer puts exceptional burdens on individuals and families during treatment and survivorship, including how they navigate their relationships with one another. One role that a member of a support network may enact is that of a surrogate seeker, who seeks information in an informal capacity on behalf of others. Individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers often use the internet to learn about cancer, but differences in their skills and strategies have received little empirical attention. Objective: This study aimed to examine the eHealth literacy of individuals with cancer and surrogate information seekers, including an investigation of how each group evaluates the credibility of web-based cancer information. As a secondary aim, we sought to explore the differences that exist between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers pertaining to eHealth literacies and sociodemographic contexts. Methods: Between October 2019 and January 2020, we conducted a web-based survey of 282 individuals with cancer (n=185) and surrogate seekers (n=97). We used hierarchical linear regression analyses to explore differences in functional, communicative, critical, and translational eHealth literacy between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers using the Transactional eHealth Literacy Instrument. Using a convergent, parallel mixed methods design, we also conducted a thematic content analysis of an open-ended survey response to qualitatively examine how each group evaluates web-based cancer information. Results: eHealth literacy scores did not differ between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers, even after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers consider the credibility of web-based cancer information based on its channel (eg, National Institutes of Health). However, in evaluating web-based information, surrogate seekers were more likely than individuals with cancer to consider the presence and quality of scientific references supporting the information. Individuals with cancer were more likely than surrogate seekers to cross-reference other websites and web-based sources to establish consensus. Conclusions: Web-based cancer information accessibility and evaluation procedures differ among individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers and should be considered in future efforts to design web-based cancer education interventions. Future studies may also benefit from more stratified recruitment approaches and account for additional contextual factors to better understand the unique circumstances experienced within this population.

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and practices (MBPs) can promote better health outcomes. Although MBIs and MBPs were developed to be delivered in-person, mobile health (mHealth) tools such as apps have made these more accessible. Mindfulness apps (MAs) are popular among emerging adults (EAs) who have the highest ownership of smartphones and who are also at risk for distress. While adverse effects have been observed with MBIs/MBPs, this has not been examined when mindfulness is practiced using apps. We interviewed EAs (n = 22) to capture their motivations for using these apps and identified health-inhibiting and enhancing experiences. Data were thematically analyzed using the constant comparative method. Motivations for app use included accessibility, convenience, and stress/health management. EAs described health-enhancing outcomes (reduced distress, improved physical symptoms, increased focus) and health-inhibiting outcomes (worsened distress, performance uncertainty, dependency development, worsened physical health). They provided suggestions for improving apps (e.g., feedback option). These findings illustrate benefits and risks that EAs may encounter when practicing mindfulness using apps, which can inform the best practices for app design.

Background: COVID-19 thrust both patients and clinicians to use telemedicine in place of traditional in-person visits. Prepandemic, limited research had examined clinician-patient communication in telemedicine visits. The shift to telemedicine in oncology, or teleoncology, has placed attention on how the technology can be utilized to provide care for patients with cancer. Objective: Our objective was to describe oncology clinicians’ experiences with teleoncology and to uncover its benefits and challenges during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with oncology clinicians. Using an inductive, thematic approach, the most prevalent themes were identified. Results: In total, 21 interviews with oncology clinicians revealed the following themes: benefits of teleoncology, such as (1) reducing patients’ travel time and expenses, (2) limiting COVID-19 exposure, and (3) enabling clinicians to “see” a patients’ lifestyle and environment, and challenges, such as (1) technological connection difficulties, (2) inability to physically examine patients, and (3) patients’ frustration related to clinicians being late to teleoncology appointments. Conclusions: Teleoncology has many benefits and is well suited for specific types of appointments. Challenges could be addressed through improved communication when scheduling appointments to make patients aware about what to expect. Ensuring patients have the proper technology to participate in teleoncology and an understanding about how it functions are necessary.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 thrust both patients and clinicians to use telemedicine in place of traditional in-person visits. Prepandemic, limited research had examined clinician-patient communication in telemedicine visits. The shift to telemedicine in oncology, or teleoncology, has placed attention on how the technology can be utilized to provide care for patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE Our objective was to describe oncology clinicians’ experiences with teleoncology and to uncover its benefits and challenges during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS In-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with oncology clinicians. Using an inductive, thematic approach, the most prevalent themes were identified. RESULTS In total, 21 interviews with oncology clinicians revealed the following themes: benefits of teleoncology, such as (1) reducing patients’ travel time and expenses, (2) limiting COVID-19 exposure, and (3) enabling clinicians to “see” a patients’ lifestyle and environment, and challenges, such as (1) technological connection difficulties, (2) inability to physically examine patients, and (3) patients’ frustration related to clinicians being late to teleoncology appointments. CONCLUSIONS Teleoncology has many benefits and is well suited for specific types of appointments. Challenges could be addressed through improved communication when scheduling appointments to make patients aware about what to expect. Ensuring patients have the proper technology to participate in teleoncology and an understanding about how it functions are necessary.