Acceptability of the consumer-centric u-health services for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: We developed and implemented a system for u-health (ubiquitous healthcare) services for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and studied the level of acceptability by the patients in the context of home visits and telephone education. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: To determine its effectiveness, the u-health service system was used for 2 years with 144 COPD patients in a clinical environment. Patients were provided with the u-healthcare service. RESULTS: Patients with COPD were highly satisfied with the u-healthcare service, which incorporated telemonitoring, teleconsultation, and tele-education along with home visits. The average acceptable fees (in USD) of the service system are as follows: u-health device, $421.28; home visit, $21.53/visit; tele-education, $0.53/min or $26.57/month; and total service fee, $44.26/month. CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients accepted u-health services with a high satisfaction rate, promising a new paradigm of consumer-centric healthcare services.

Development of implementation strategies for u-health services based on the healthcare professionals' experiences.

OBJECTIVES: The study develops strategies for implementing ubiquitous healthcare (u-health) based on previous experiences of the healthcare professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative content analysis, one of qualitative research methods, was used on in-depth interviews conducted between July 21 and October 4, 2009, with 11 healthcare professionals including medical doctors and community healthcare specialist nurses who have previously provided u-health services. RESULTS: Four primary subjects were addressed: (1) subjective experiences on the usability, (2) the expectations, (3) the business prospects, and (4) the prerequisites for the success of u-health market. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, desirable u-health services from the perspective of healthcare professionals were proposed.

Randomized, multi-center phase II trial of docetaxel plus cisplatin versus etoposide plus cisplatin as the first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: We prospectively conducted a multi-center, open-label, randomized phase II trial to compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) and etoposide plus cisplatin (EC) for treating advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight previously untreated patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC were enrolled in this study. The patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and either docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 or etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 3 in the DC or EC arm, respectively, every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The objective response rate was 39.4% (15/38) and 18.4% (7/38) (p=0.023) in the DC and EC arms, respectively. The median time to progression (TTP) was 5.9 and 2.7 months (p=0.119), and the overall survival was 12.1 and 8.7 months (p=0.168) in the DC and EC arms, respectively. The prognostic factors for longer survival were an earlier disease stage (stage III, p=0.0095), the responders to DC (p=0.0174) and the adenocarcinoma histology (p=0.0454). The grades 3 and 4 toxicities were similar in both arms, with more febrile neutropenia (7.9% vs. 0%) and fatigue (7.9% vs. 0%) being noted in the DC arm. CONCLUSION: DC offered a superior overall response rate than does EC, along with tolerable toxicity profiles, although the DC drug combination did not show significantly improved survival and TTP.