Attitudes of Australian Patients Undergoing Treatment for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers to Different Models of Nutrition Care Delivery: Qualitative Investigation.

cancer mobile phone nutrition qualitative upper gastrointestinal

Journal

JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Mar 2021
Historique:
received: 30 08 2020
accepted: 19 12 2020
revised: 29 11 2020
entrez: 12 3 2021
pubmed: 13 3 2021
medline: 13 3 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Adults diagnosed with cancers of the stomach, esophagus, and pancreas are at high risk of malnutrition. In many hospital-based health care settings, there is a lack of systems in place to provide the early and intensive nutritional support that is required by these high-risk cancer patients. Our research team conducted a 3-arm parallel randomized controlled trial to test the provision of an early and intensive nutrition intervention to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers using a synchronous telephone-based delivery approach versus an asynchronous mobile app-based approach delivered using an iPad compared with a control group to address this issue. This study aims to explore the overall acceptability of an early and intensive eHealth nutrition intervention delivered either via a synchronous telephone-based approach or an asynchronous mobile app-based approach. Patients who were newly diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal cancer and who consented to participate in a nutrition intervention were recruited. In-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability in NVivo Pro 12 Plus. A total of 20 participants were interviewed, 10 from each intervention group (synchronous or asynchronous delivery). Four major themes emerged from the qualitative synthesis: participants' self-efficacy, low levels of burden, and intervention comprehension were required for intervention effectiveness and positive affect; participants sought a sense of support and security through relationship building and rapport with their dietitian; knowledge acquisition and learning-enabled empowerment through self-management; and convenience, flexibility, and bridging the gap to hard-to-reach individuals. Features of eHealth models of nutrition care delivered via telephone and mobile app can be acceptable to those undergoing treatment for upper gastrointestinal cancer. Convenience, knowledge acquisition, improved self-management, and support were key benefits for the participants. Future interventions should focus on home-based interventions delivered with simple, easy-to-use technology. Providing participants with a choice of intervention delivery mode (synchronous or asynchronous) and allowing them to make individual choices that align to their individual values and capabilities may support improved outcomes. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN) 12617000152325; https://tinyurl.com/p3kxd37b.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Adults diagnosed with cancers of the stomach, esophagus, and pancreas are at high risk of malnutrition. In many hospital-based health care settings, there is a lack of systems in place to provide the early and intensive nutritional support that is required by these high-risk cancer patients. Our research team conducted a 3-arm parallel randomized controlled trial to test the provision of an early and intensive nutrition intervention to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers using a synchronous telephone-based delivery approach versus an asynchronous mobile app-based approach delivered using an iPad compared with a control group to address this issue.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This study aims to explore the overall acceptability of an early and intensive eHealth nutrition intervention delivered either via a synchronous telephone-based approach or an asynchronous mobile app-based approach.
METHODS METHODS
Patients who were newly diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal cancer and who consented to participate in a nutrition intervention were recruited. In-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability in NVivo Pro 12 Plus.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 20 participants were interviewed, 10 from each intervention group (synchronous or asynchronous delivery). Four major themes emerged from the qualitative synthesis: participants' self-efficacy, low levels of burden, and intervention comprehension were required for intervention effectiveness and positive affect; participants sought a sense of support and security through relationship building and rapport with their dietitian; knowledge acquisition and learning-enabled empowerment through self-management; and convenience, flexibility, and bridging the gap to hard-to-reach individuals.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Features of eHealth models of nutrition care delivered via telephone and mobile app can be acceptable to those undergoing treatment for upper gastrointestinal cancer. Convenience, knowledge acquisition, improved self-management, and support were key benefits for the participants. Future interventions should focus on home-based interventions delivered with simple, easy-to-use technology. Providing participants with a choice of intervention delivery mode (synchronous or asynchronous) and allowing them to make individual choices that align to their individual values and capabilities may support improved outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN) 12617000152325; https://tinyurl.com/p3kxd37b.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.2196/23979 PMID: 33709939 PMC: PMC7998321
pubmed: 33709939
pii: v5i3e23979
doi: 10.2196/23979
pmc: PMC7998321
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e23979

Informations de copyright

©Kate Furness, Catherine Elizabeth Huggins, Helen Truby, Daniel Croagh, Terry Peter Haines. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (http://formative.jmir.org), 12.03.2021.

Références

J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 09;19(1):e11
pubmed: 28069561
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Apr;25(4):469-73
pubmed: 23325274
Telemed J E Health. 2018 Jun;24(6):397-405
pubmed: 29112484
Soc Work. 2000 Oct;45(5):439-47
pubmed: 11029899
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 06;20(4):e123
pubmed: 29625950
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2019 Apr-Jun;10(2):100-112
pubmed: 30986113
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2005;9 Suppl 2:S51-63
pubmed: 16437758
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95
pubmed: 23512568
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jul 1;27(7):1132-1135
pubmed: 32324855
J Surg Oncol. 2009 Jul 1;100(1):82-7
pubmed: 19373870
J Cancer Educ. 2016 Sep;31(3):610-6
pubmed: 25994358
Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;24(1):55-65
pubmed: 15681102
Br J Health Psychol. 2018 Sep;23(3):519-531
pubmed: 29453791
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 11;7(2):e10930
pubmed: 30741644
Int J Cancer Suppl. 1998;11:48-51
pubmed: 9876478
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jun 1;27(6):957-962
pubmed: 32311034
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003 Feb;57(2):305-9
pubmed: 12571664
BMC Cancer. 2018 Jul 3;18(1):707
pubmed: 29970033
J Support Oncol. 2011 Jan 1;9(1):e1-e11
pubmed: 21499540
JMIR Aging. 2019 Mar 19;2(1):e10019
pubmed: 31518253
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Jul;23(7):2183-8
pubmed: 25649121
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
J Biomed Inform. 2013 Oct;46(5):947-54
pubmed: 23810858
Int J Med Inform. 2013 Nov;82(11):e209-31
pubmed: 21481631
Lancet Oncol. 2003 Nov;4(11):686-94
pubmed: 14602249
Br J Nutr. 2011 Dec;106(12):1773-8
pubmed: 21679482
Clin Nutr. 2020 May;39(5):1593-1599
pubmed: 31375303
Eur J Cancer. 1998 Mar;34(4):503-9
pubmed: 9713300
Qual Health Res. 2002 Apr;12(4):531-45
pubmed: 11939252
BMC Med. 2020 Jan 20;18(1):6
pubmed: 31955710
Clin Nutr. 2019 Apr;38(2):644-651
pubmed: 29789167
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753-1760
pubmed: 26613970
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2000 Jun;34(3):137-68
pubmed: 10838261
Gastrointest Tumors. 2016 May;2(4):166-77
pubmed: 27403411
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285

Auteurs

Kate Furness (K)

Monash Health, Nutrition and Dietetics, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
ORCID: 0000-0002-4176-3050

Catherine Elizabeth Huggins (CE)

Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
ORCID: 0000-0003-3929-7756

Helen Truby (H)

School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
ORCID: 0000-0002-1992-1649

Daniel Croagh (D)

Upper Gastrointestinal and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Monash Health, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
ORCID: 0000-0002-6430-6741

Terry Peter Haines (TP)

School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
ORCID: 0000-0003-3150-6154

Classifications MeSH