Feasibility of an Interactive Patient Portal for Monitoring Physical Activity, Remote Symptom Reporting, and Patient Education in Oncology: Qualitative Study

Background

Digital health interventions, such as the use of patient portals, have been shown to offer benefits to a range of patients including those with a diagnosis of cancer.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the participant experience and perception of using an interactive Web-based portal for monitoring physical activity, remote symptom reporting, and delivering educational components.

Methods

Participants who were currently under treatment or had recently completed intensive treatment for cancer were recruited to three cohorts and invited to join a Web-based portal to enhance their physical activity. Cohort 1 received Web portal access and an activity monitor; cohort 2 had additional summative messaging; and cohort 3 had additional personalized health coaching messaging. Following the 10-week intervention, participants were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. Interview recordings were transcribed and evaluated using qualitative thematic analysis.

Results

A total of 17 semistructured interviews were carried out. Participants indicated that using the Web portal was feasible. Personalized messaging improved participant perceptions of the value of the intervention. There was a contrast between cohorts and levels of engagement with increasing health professional contact leading to an increase in engagement. Educational material needs to be tailored to the participants’ cancer treatment status, health literacy, and background.

Conclusions

Participants reported an overall positive experience using the Web portal and that personalized messaging positively impacted on their health behaviors. Future studies should focus more on design of interventions, ensuring appropriate tailoring of information and personalization of behavioral support messaging.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/9586

Content, Quality, and Assessment Tools of Physician-Rating Websites in 12 Countries: Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Websites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to collect information on websites with a physician rating or review tool in 12 countries in terms of metadata, website quality (transparency, privacy and freedom of speech of physicians and patients, check mechanisms for appropriateness and accuracy of reviews, and ease of page navigation), professional information about the physician, rating scales and tools, as well as traffic rank.

METHODS

A systematic Web search based on a set of predefined keywords was conducted on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in August 2016. A final sample of 143 physician-rating websites was analyzed and coded for metadata, quality, information content, and the physician-rating tools.

RESULTS

The majority of websites were registered in the United States (40/143) or Germany (25/143). The vast majority were commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%), and 69.9% (100/143) displayed some form of physician advertisement. Overall, information content (mean 9.95/25) as well as quality were low (mean 18.67/47). Websites registered in the United Kingdom obtained the highest quality scores (mean 26.50/47), followed by Australian websites (mean 21.50/47). In terms of rating tools, physician-rating websites were most frequently asking users to score overall performance, punctuality, or wait time in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on physician-rating websites are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the financial goals that the majority of physician-rating websites, especially the ones that are commercially owned, pursue.