App-based assessment of patient-reported outcomes in the Molecular Tumor Board in the Center for Personalized Medicine-(TRACE).

Background: Biomarker-based therapies are increasingly used in cancer patients outside clinical trials. Systematic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is warranted to take patients' perspectives during biomarker-based therapies into consideration. We assessed the feasibility of an electronic PRO assessment via a smartphone application. Methods: An interdisciplinary expert panel developed a smartphone application based on symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) metrics reported in a retrospective analysis of 292 neuro-oncological patients. The app included validated assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), the burden of symptoms, and psychological stress. Feasibility and usability were tested in a pilot study. Semi-structured interviews with patients and health care professionals (HCP) were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed according to Mayring´s qualitative content analysis. Furthermore, we assessed compliance and descriptive data of ePROs. Results: A total of 14 patients have been enrolled, (9 female, 5 male). A total of 4 HCPs, 9 patients, and 1 caregiver were interviewed regarding usability/feasibility. The main advantages were the possibility to complete questionnaires at home and comfortable implementation in daily life. Compliance was high, for example, 82% of the weekly distributed NCCN distress thermometer questionnaires were answered on time, however, with interindividual variability. We observed a median distress score of 5 (range 0-10, 197 results, n = 12, weekly assessed) and a median Global health score of 58.3 according to the EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument (range 16.7-100, 77 results, n = 12, monthly assessed). Conclusions: This pilot study proved the feasibility and acceptance of the app. We will therefore expand its application during biomarker-guided therapies to enable systematic PRO assessments.

Attributes, Methods, and Frameworks Used to Evaluate Wearables and Their Companion mHealth Apps: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices, mobile technologies, and their combination have been accepted into clinical use to better assess the physical fitness and quality of life of patients and as preventive measures. Usability is pivotal for overcoming constraints and gaining users' acceptance of technology such as wearables and their companion mobile health (mHealth) apps. However, owing to limitations in design and evaluation, interactive wearables and mHealth apps have often been restricted from their full potential. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify studies that have incorporated wearable devices and determine their frequency of use in conjunction with mHealth apps or their combination. Specifically, this study aims to understand the attributes and evaluation techniques used to evaluate usability in the health care domain for these technologies and their combinations. METHODS: We conducted an extensive search across 4 electronic databases, spanning the last 30 years up to December 2021. Studies including the keywords "wearable devices," "mobile apps," "mHealth apps," "physiological data," "usability," "user experience," and "user evaluation" were considered for inclusion. A team of 5 reviewers screened the collected publications and charted the features based on the research questions. Subsequently, we categorized these characteristics following existing usability and wearable taxonomies. We applied a methodological framework for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. RESULTS: A total of 382 reports were identified from the search strategy, and 68 articles were included. Most of the studies (57/68, 84%) involved the simultaneous use of wearables and connected mobile apps. Wrist-worn commercial consumer devices such as wristbands were the most prevalent, accounting for 66% (45/68) of the wearables identified in our review. Approximately half of the data from the medical domain (32/68, 47%) focused on studies involving participants with chronic illnesses or disorders. Overall, 29 usability attributes were identified, and 5 attributes were frequently used for evaluation: satisfaction (34/68, 50%), ease of use (27/68, 40%), user experience (16/68, 24%), perceived usefulness (18/68, 26%), and effectiveness (15/68, 22%). Only 10% (7/68) of the studies used a user- or human-centered design paradigm for usability evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review identified the types and categories of wearable devices and mHealth apps, their frequency of use in studies, and their implementation in the medical context. In addition, we examined the usability evaluation of these technologies: methods, attributes, and frameworks. Within the array of available wearables and mHealth apps, health care providers encounter the challenge of selecting devices and companion apps that are effective, user-friendly, and compatible with user interactions. The current gap in usability and user experience in health care research limits our understanding of the strengths and limitations of wearable technologies and their companion apps. Additional research is necessary to overcome these limitations.

Usability and User Experience of an mHealth App for Therapy Support of Patients With Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study Using Eye Tracking.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of quality of life (QoL) loss and side effects is a key challenge in breast cancer therapy. Digital tools can be helpful components of therapeutic support. Enable, a smartphone app, was used in a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial in 3 breast cancer centers. The app simultaneously serves as a therapy companion (eg, by displaying appointments), a tool for documenting QoL (eg, by enabling data collection for QoL questionnaires), and documentation of patient-reported side effects. The need for digital tools is continually rising. However, evidence of the effects of long-term use of mobile health (mHealth) apps in aftercare for patients with breast cancer is limited. Therefore, evaluating the usability and understanding the user experience of this mHealth app could potentially contribute valuable insights in this field. OBJECTIVE: A usability study was conducted to explore how patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or palliative outpatient treatment rated their engagement with the app , the user experience, and the benefits of using the app. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was chosen to combine subjective and objective measures, including an eye-tracking procedure, a standardized usability questionnaire (mHealth App Usability Questionnaire), and semistructured interviews. Participants were surveyed twice during the study period. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis of the eye-tracking data was carried out using the tracker-integrated software. Descriptive analysis was conducted for the quantitative data. RESULTS: The mHealth App Usability Questionnaire results (n=105) indicated good overall usability for 2 different time points (4 wk: mean 89.15, SD 9.65; 20 wk: mean 85.57, SD 12.88). The qualitative analysis of the eye-tracking recordings (n=10) and interviews (n=16) showed that users found the Enable app easy to use. The design of the app, information about therapies and side effects, and usefulness of the app as a therapy companion were rated positively. Additionally, participants contributed requests for additional app features and suggestions for improving the content and usability of the app. Relevant themes included optimization of the appointment feature, updating the app's content regularly, and self-administration. In contrast to the app's current passive method of operation, participants expressed a desire for more active engagement through messaging, alarms, or emails. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate the good usability of the Enable app as well as the potential for further development. We concluded from patients' feedback and requests that mHealth apps could benefit from giving patients a more active role (eg, being able to actively document side effects as they occur). Additionally, regular updates of app content could further contribute to encouraging continued use of mHealth apps. Our findings may also assist other researchers in tailoring their mHealth apps to the actual needs of patients undergoing breast cancer therapy.

Mobile Access to Medical Records in Heart Transplantation Aftercare: Mixed-Methods Study Assessing Usability, Feasibility and Effects of a Mobile Application.

BACKGROUND: Patient access to medical records can improve quality of care. The phellow application (app) was developed to provide patients access to selected content of their medical record. It was tested at a heart transplantation (HTx) outpatient clinic. The aims of this study were (1) to assess usability of phellow, (2) to determine feasibility of implementation in routine care, and (3) to study the effects app use had on patients' self-management. METHODS: Usability was measured quantitatively through the System Usability Scale (SUS). Furthermore, usability, feasibility, and effects on self-management were qualitatively assessed through interviews with users, non-users, and health care providers. RESULTS: The SUS rating (n = 31) was 79.9, indicating good usability. Twenty-three interviews were conducted. Although appreciation and willingness-to-use were high, usability problems such as incompleteness of record, technical issues, and complex registration procedures were reported. Improved technical support infrastructure, clearly defined responsibilities, and app-specific trainings were suggested for further implementation. Patients described positive effects on their self-management. CONCLUSIONS: To be feasible for implementation in routine care, usability problems should be addressed. Feedback on the effect of app use was encouraging. Accompanying research is crucial to monitor usability improvements and to further assess effects of app use on patients.

Perspective of Information Technology Decision Makers on Factors Influencing Adoption and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in 40 German Hospitals: Descriptive Analysis.

BACKGROUND: New artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being developed at a high speed. However, strategies and practical experiences surrounding the adoption and implementation of AI in health care are lacking. This is likely because of the high implementation complexity of AI, legacy IT infrastructure, and unclear business cases, thus complicating AI adoption. Research has recently started to identify the factors influencing AI readiness of organizations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing AI readiness as well as possible barriers to AI adoption and implementation in German hospitals. We also assessed the status quo regarding the dissemination of AI tools in hospitals. We focused on IT decision makers, a seldom studied but highly relevant group. METHODS: We created a web-based survey based on recent AI readiness and implementation literature. Participants were identified through a publicly accessible database and contacted via email or invitational leaflets sent by mail, in some cases accompanied by a telephonic prenotification. The survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We contacted 609 possible participants, and our database recorded 40 completed surveys. Most participants agreed or rather agreed with the statement that AI would be relevant in the future, both in Germany (37/40, 93%) and in their own hospital (36/40, 90%). Participants were asked whether their hospitals used or planned to use AI technologies. Of the 40 participants, 26 (65%) answered "yes." Most AI technologies were used or planned for patient care, followed by biomedical research, administration, and logistics and central purchasing. The most important barriers to AI were lack of resources (staff, knowledge, and financial). Relevant possible opportunities for using AI were increase in efficiency owing to time-saving effects, competitive advantages, and increase in quality of care. Most AI tools in use or in planning have been developed with external partners. CONCLUSIONS: Few tools have been implemented in routine care, and many hospitals do not use or plan to use AI in the future. This can likely be explained by missing or unclear business cases or the need for a modern IT infrastructure to integrate AI tools in a usable manner. These shortcomings complicate decision-making and resource attribution. As most AI technologies already in use were developed in cooperation with external partners, these relationships should be fostered. IT decision makers should assess their hospitals' readiness for AI individually with a focus on resources. Further research should continue to monitor the dissemination of AI tools and readiness factors to determine whether improvements can be made over time. This monitoring is especially important with regard to government-supported investments in AI technologies that could alleviate financial burdens. Qualitative studies with hospital IT decision makers should be conducted to further explore the reasons for slow AI.