The purpose of this project is to develop and test an integrated mHealth learning program (L-mHealth program) for gynecological cancer that integrates effective educational strategies and mobile health application to meet the learning needs of Taiwanese Women with Gynecological Cancer (WGC) through the process of co-creation, with the active input of WGC and experts' directly impacting content and design. This project was to develop the L-mHealth system and prototype of a smartphone app for WGC through the process of co-creation, with the active input of WGC and experts' directly impacting content and design.
The second year research purpose is to establish the L-mHealth program's framework, which according to the needs assessment and health education strategies of the first year. The L-mHealth system will be then developed according to the course framework use TTM theory and self-efficacy theory as the basis. A single-blinded, randomized controlled parallel-group clinical trial with repeated- measures research will be conducted in the third year. A total of 120 ovarian cancer women will be recruited from a medical center in northern Taiwan and then assigned to one of two groups (the experiment and control groups) by stratified randomization. Women were randomized either to the intervention group (n=60) receiving the L-mHealth program plus care as usual or the control group (n=60) receiving care as usual alone. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), 1 months (T1) and 3 months (T2) after the intervention. Co-creation is a user-involved process that can create a useful and customized product for the WGC target population. As such, this process is a beneficial process to tilize when addressing the specific needs of WGC. Through the study of the L-mHealth program, it is expected to improve women's use of ICT and demonstrate its potential as an effective and easily accessible intervention to promote women's symptom interference and quality of life for WGC.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
67
The intervention group receiving the L-mHealth program plus care as usual. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), 1 months (T1) and 3 months (T2) after the intervention.
Cheng Gung Memorial Hospital
Taoyuan District, Guishan Dist., Taiwan
Symptom Distress
The research project assessed changes in symptom distress by Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF) . Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF), revised by Lai (1998), for the symptom assessment of ovarian cancer patients. The scale is adapted from the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) developed by McCorkle and Young (1978) for lung cancer patients. The scoring method uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess the level of symptom distress as self-reported by cancer patients. A score of 1 indicates no distress at all, 2 indicates mild distress, 3 indicates moderate distress, 4 indicates severe distress, and 5 indicates very severe distress. The total score ranges from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating more severe symptom distress. The Cronbach's alpha value for cervical cancer patients in our country was 0.87, and the content validity was 0.92 (Chen et al., 2007).
Time frame: Data were collected at baseline.
Symptom Distress
The research project assessed changes in symptom distress by Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF) . Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF), revised by Lai (1998), for the symptom assessment of ovarian cancer patients. The scale is adapted from the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) developed by McCorkle and Young (1978) for lung cancer patients. The scoring method uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess the level of symptom distress as self-reported by cancer patients. A score of 1 indicates no distress at all, 2 indicates mild distress, 3 indicates moderate distress, 4 indicates severe distress, and 5 indicates very severe distress. The total score ranges from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating more severe symptom distress.The Cronbach's alpha value for cervical cancer patients in our country was 0.87, and the content validity was 0.92 (Chen et al., 2007).
Time frame: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
Symptom Distress
The research project assessed changes in symptom distress by Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF). Symptom Distress Scale-Chinese Modified Form (SDS-CMF), revised by Lai (1998), for the symptom assessment of ovarian cancer patients. The scale is adapted from the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) developed by McCorkle and Young (1978) for lung cancer patients. The scoring method uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess the level of symptom distress as self-reported by cancer patients. A score of 1 indicates no distress at all, 2 indicates mild distress, 3 indicates moderate distress, 4 indicates severe distress, and 5 indicates very severe distress. The total score ranges from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating more severe symptom distress. The Cronbach's alpha value for cervical cancer patients in our country was 0.87, and the content validity was 0.92 (Chen et al., 2007).
Time frame: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy for cancer
The research project assessed changes in communication and attitudinal self-efficacy for cancer by Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE). The "Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy Scale for Cancer (CASE)," originally designed by Wolf et al. (2005) and translated by Yang (2005). The scale comprises three major dimensions: the ability to understand and participate in care, the ability to maintain a positive attitude, and the ability to seek and obtain information, totaling 12 items. The scoring uses a Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1 point) to strongly agree (5 points). The reliability of the scale, as measured by internal consistency, shows a Cronbach's α value ranging from 0.80 to 0.95 across the different dimensions.
Time frame: Data were collected at baseline.
Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy for cancer
The research project assessed changes in communication and attitudinal self-efficacy for cancer by Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE) . The "Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy Scale for Cancer (CASE)," originally designed by Wolf et al. (2005) and translated by Yang (2005). The scale comprises three major dimensions: the ability to understand and participate in care, the ability to maintain a positive attitude, and the ability to seek and obtain information, totaling 12 items. The scoring uses a Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1 point) to strongly agree (5 points). The reliability of the scale, as measured by internal consistency, shows a Cronbach's α value ranging from 0.80 to 0.95 across the different dimensions.
Time frame: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy for cancer
The research project assessed changes in communication and attitudinal self-efficacy for cancer by Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE). The "Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy Scale for Cancer (CASE)," originally designed by Wolf et al. (2005) and translated by Yang (2005). The scale comprises three major dimensions: the ability to understand and participate in care, the ability to maintain a positive attitude, and the ability to seek and obtain information, totaling 12 items. The scoring uses a Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1 point) to strongly agree (5 points). The reliability of the scale, as measured by internal consistency, shows a Cronbach's α value ranging from 0.80 to 0.95 across the different dimensions.
Time frame: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
Needs of Health Information for the patients with Gynecological Cancer
The research project assessed changes in needs of health information for the patients with gynecological cancer by Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer. The study utilizes the Chinese version of Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer, adapted by Lei, Har, \& Abdullah (2011) from the "Toronto Informational Needs Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (TINQ-BC)," and used with the authors' permission (Huang \& Hsieh, 2015). The Chinese version for gynecologic cancer patients was modified from 52 to 50 items, with a scoring system ranging from 1 ('Not needed at all') to 5 ('Greatly needed'). Higher scores indicate a greater need for the information in that item. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales range from 0.835 to 0.958 (Chen \& Hsieh, 2017). The Content Validity Index (CVI) values for expert validity range from 0.75 to 0.94 (Hsieh et al., 2018; Huang \& Hsieh, 2015)."
Time frame: Data were collected at baseline.
Needs of Health Information for the patients with Gynecological Cancer
The research project assessed changes in needs of health information for the patients with gynecological cancer by Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer . The study utilizes the Chinese version of Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer, adapted by Lei, Har, \& Abdullah (2011) from the "Toronto Informational Needs Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (TINQ-BC)," and used with the authors' permission (Huang \& Hsieh, 2015). The Chinese version for gynecologic cancer patients was modified from 52 to 50 items, with a scoring system ranging from 1 ('Not needed at all') to 5 ('Greatly needed'). Higher scores indicate a greater need for the information in that item.The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales range from 0.835 to 0.958 (Chen \& Hsieh, 2017). The Content Validity Index (CVI) values for expert validity range from 0.75 to 0.94 (Hsieh et al., 2018; Huang \& Hsieh, 2015)."
Time frame: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
Needs of Health Information for the patients with Gynecological Cancer
The research project assessed changes in needs of health information for the patients with gynecological cancer by Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer. The study utilizes the Chinese version of Informational Needs Questionnaires- Gynecological Cancer, adapted by Lei, Har, \& Abdullah (2011) from the "Toronto Informational Needs Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (TINQ-BC)," and used with the authors' permission (Huang \& Hsieh, 2015). The Chinese version for gynecologic cancer patients was modified from 52 to 50 items, with a scoring system ranging from 1 ('Not needed at all') to 5 ('Greatly needed'). Higher scores indicate a greater need for the information in that item. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the subscales range from 0.835 to 0.958 (Chen \& Hsieh, 2017). The Content Validity Index (CVI) values for expert validity range from 0.75 to 0.94 (Hsieh et al., 2018; Huang \& Hsieh, 2015)."
Time frame: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
Chatbot Usability
The research project assessed changes in chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ). The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) was developed by Holmes et al. (2019) based on principles of user experience with chatbots. It is similar in design to the System Usability Scale (SUS) by Brooke (1996) but was specifically developed for assessing chatbot usability. The questionnaire consists of 16 items, with 8 related to positive aspects of chatbot usability and 8 related to negative aspects. It uses a 5-point Likert scale for users to rate the chatbot's usability, where 1 indicates strong disagreement, 2 disagreement, 3 neutrality, 4 agreement, and 5 strong agreement. The scores are standardized on a scale of 100 points.The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) demonstrates good internal consistency (r \> 0.7) (Holmes et al., 2023).
Time frame: Data were collected at baseline.
Chatbot Usability
The research project assessed changes in chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) . The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) was developed by Holmes et al. (2019) based on principles of user experience with chatbots. It is similar in design to the System Usability Scale (SUS) by Brooke (1996) but was specifically developed for assessing chatbot usability. The questionnaire consists of 16 items, with 8 related to positive aspects of chatbot usability and 8 related to negative aspects. It uses a 5-point Likert scale for users to rate the chatbot's usability, where 1 indicates strong disagreement, 2 disagreement, 3 neutrality, 4 agreement, and 5 strong agreement. The scores are standardized on a scale of 100 points. The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) demonstrates good internal consistency (r \> 0.7) (Holmes et al., 2023).
Time frame: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
Chatbot Usability
The research project assessed changes in chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) from baseline to 3 months after the Interventions. The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) was developed by Holmes et al. (2019) based on principles of user experience with chatbots. It is similar in design to the System Usability Scale (SUS) by Brooke (1996) but was specifically developed for assessing chatbot usability. The questionnaire consists of 16 items, with 8 related to positive aspects of chatbot usability and 8 related to negative aspects. It uses a 5-point Likert scale for users to rate the chatbot's usability, where 1 indicates strong disagreement, 2 disagreement, 3 neutrality, 4 agreement, and 5 strong agreement. The scores are standardized on a scale of 100 points.The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ) demonstrates good internal consistency (r \> 0.7) (Holmes et al., 2023).
Time frame: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
System Usability
The research project assessed changes in system usability by System Usability Scale (SUS) . The System Usability Scale (SUS), originally proposed by Brooke in 1986 (Brooke, 1996). The SUS consists of 10 items, scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Strongly agree is scored as 5 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. For positively worded items, the score is calculated by subtracting 1 from the item score, while for negatively worded items, the score is obtained by subtracting the item score from 5. The total SUS score is then calculated by summing the item scores and multiplying by 2.5, yielding a final score that can be categorized into six grades: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), and F (0-59) according to Bangor, Kortum, and Miller (2009).
Time frame: Data were collected at baseline.
System Usability
The research project assessed changes in system usability by System Usability Scale (SUS) . The System Usability Scale (SUS), originally proposed by Brooke in 1986 (Brooke, 1996). The SUS consists of 10 items, scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Strongly agree is scored as 5 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. For positively worded items, the score is calculated by subtracting 1 from the item score, while for negatively worded items, the score is obtained by subtracting the item score from 5. The total SUS score is then calculated by summing the item scores and multiplying by 2.5, yielding a final score that can be categorized into six grades: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), and F (0-59) according to Bangor, Kortum, and Miller (2009).
Time frame: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
System Usability
The research project assessed changes in system usability by System Usability Scale (SUS) . The System Usability Scale (SUS), originally proposed by Brooke in 1986 (Brooke, 1996). The SUS consists of 10 items, scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Strongly agree is scored as 5 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. For positively worded items, the score is calculated by subtracting 1 from the item score, while for negatively worded items, the score is obtained by subtracting the item score from 5. The total SUS score is then calculated by summing the item scores and multiplying by 2.5, yielding a final score that can be categorized into six grades: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), and F (0-59) according to Bangor, Kortum, and Miller (2009).
Time frame: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
mHealth App Usability
The research project assessed changes in mHealth App usability by mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) . This study chose to use the 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) (Zhou et al., 2009). Strongly agree is scored as 7 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. The MAUQ has demonstrated good reliability and validity during its development process. In terms of internal consistency, the three subscales-Ease of Use and Satisfaction (MAUQ\_E), System Information Arrangement (MAUQ\_S), and Usefulness (MAUQ\_U)-have Cronbach's α values of 0.895, 0.829, and 0.900, respectively.
Time frame: Data were collected at baseline.
mHealth App Usability
The research project assessed changes in mHealth App usability by mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). This study chose to use the 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) (Zhou et al., 2009). Strongly agree is scored as 7 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. The MAUQ has demonstrated good reliability and validity during its development process. In terms of internal consistency, the three subscales-Ease of Use and Satisfaction (MAUQ\_E), System Information Arrangement (MAUQ\_S), and Usefulness (MAUQ\_U)-have Cronbach's α values of 0.895, 0.829, and 0.900, respectively.
Time frame: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
mHealth App Usability
The research project assessed changes in mHealth App usability by mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) from baseline to 3 months after the Interventions. This study chose to use the 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) (Zhou et al., 2009). Strongly agree is scored as 7 points, and strongly disagree as 1 point. The MAUQ has demonstrated good reliability and validity during its development process. In terms of internal consistency, the three subscales-Ease of Use and Satisfaction (MAUQ\_E), System Information Arrangement (MAUQ\_S), and Usefulness (MAUQ\_U)-have Cronbach's α values of 0.895, 0.829, and 0.900, respectively.
Time frame: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
Bot Usability
The research project assessed changes in Chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Scale(BUS). This study utilizes the Chatbot Usability Scale (BUS-11) developed by Borsci et al. (2023) to assess chatbot usability. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score ranges from 11 to 55, with higher scores indicating greater user satisfaction with the chatbot's usability (Borsci et al., 2023).The Cronbach's alpha value is 0.90, indicating a high level of internal consistency among the items in the scale (Borsci et al., 2023).
Time frame: Data were collected at baseline.
Bot Usability
The research project assessed changes in Chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Scale(BUS). This study utilizes the Chatbot Usability Scale (BUS-11) developed by Borsci et al. (2023) to assess chatbot usability. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score ranges from 11 to 55, with higher scores indicating greater user satisfaction with the chatbot's usability (Borsci et al., 2023).The Cronbach's alpha value is 0.90, indicating a high level of internal consistency among the items in the scale (Borsci et al., 2023).
Time frame: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
Bot Usability
The research project assessed changes in Chatbot usability by Chatbot Usability Scale(BUS) from baseline to 3 months after the Interventions. This study utilizes the Chatbot Usability Scale (BUS-11) developed by Borsci et al. (2023) to assess chatbot usability. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score ranges from 11 to 55, with higher scores indicating greater user satisfaction with the chatbot's usability (Borsci et al., 2023).The Cronbach's alpha value is 0.90, indicating a high level of internal consistency among the items in the scale (Borsci et al., 2023).
Time frame: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.