Predictors of High eHealth Literacy in Primary Lung Cancer Survivors.

Lung cancer survivors are likely to have low health literacy which is an independent risk factor for poorer health outcomes. The eHealth literacy in lung cancer survivors has not been reported. The purposes of this study were to determine self-perceived eHealth literacy levels in lung cancer survivors and to explore predictors of higher eHealth literacy. A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. Survivors completed a survey that collected demographic, self-perceived eHealth literacy (using the eHealth Literacy Scale), and quality of life information. Tumor and treatment details were extracted from medical records. Demographic data was summarized using descriptive statistics and compared against those with high and low eHealth literacy using Fisher's exact test. Eighty-three survivors were enrolled over 7 months. Median age was 71 years (range 44-89); 41 survivors (49%) were male. Forty-six (55%) survivors had some college education or higher. Most had access to eResources (78%) via computer, Internet, or smartphone. Fifty-seven (69%) scored 5 or greater (7=excellent) on the overall health scale. Twenty-eight (33.7%) perceived themselves to have high eHealth literacy. There was no statistically significant correlation between eHealth literacy groups and age (p=1.00), gender (p=0.82), living situation (p=1.00), overall health (p=1.00), overall quality of life (QoL) (p=1.00), or histology (p=0.74). High eHealth literacy correlated with the level of education received (p=0.003) and access to eResources (p=0.004). The self-perceived eHealth literacy of lung cancer survivors is generally low.

Determining an imaging literacy curriculum for radiation oncologists: an international Delphi study.

PURPOSE: Rapid evolution of imaging technologies and their integration into radiation therapy practice demands that radiation oncology (RO) training curricula be updated. The purpose of this study was to develop an entry-to-practice image literacy competency profile. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A list of 263 potential imaging competency items were assembled from international objectives of training. Expert panel eliminated redundant or irrelevant items to create a list of 97 unique potential competency items. An international 2-round Delphi process was conducted with experts in RO. In round 1, all experts scored, on a 9-point Likert scale, the degree to which they agreed an item should be included in the competency profile. Items with a mean score ≥ 7 were included, those 4 to 6 were reviewed in round 2, and items scored <4 were excluded. In round 2, items were discussed and subsequently ranked for inclusion or exclusion in the competency profile. Items with >75% voting for inclusion were included in the final competency profile. RESULTS: Forty-nine radiation oncologists were invited to participate in round 1, and 32 (65%) did so. Participants represented 24 centers in 6 countries. Of the 97 items ranked in round 1, 80 had a mean score ≥ 7, 1 item had a score <4, and 16 items with a mean score of 4 to 6 were reviewed and rescored in round 2. In round 2, 4 items had >75% of participants voting for inclusion and were included; the remaining 12 were excluded. The final list of 84 items formed the final competency profile. The 84 enabling competency items were aggregated into the following 4 thematic groups of key competencies: (1) imaging fundamentals (42 items); (2) clinical application (27 items); (3) clinical management (5 items); and (4) professional practice (10 items). CONCLUSIONS: We present an imaging literacy competency profile which could constitute the minimum training standards in radiation oncology residency programs.