Preferences of Cancer Survivors and Healthcare Providers for a Physical Activity Application: A Group Concept Mapping Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may help increase physical activity (PA) in diverse groups, including cancer survivors (CSs). Developing an intervention requires a needs assessment of stakeholders, focusing on the preferred features of the application from the perspectives of both CSs and healthcare providers (HCPs). METHODS: Group concept mapping was used for this assessment. A first group of stakeholders (CSs: n = 14; HCPs: n = 12) brainstormed and generated statements about preferred app features. A second group (CSs: n = 16; HCPs: n = 23) sorted these statements into thematic clusters and rated their importance. The sorting data was combined, and (dis)similarity matrices were generated through multidimensional scaling. Rating data was aggregated for the overall group and the subgroups (CSs and HCPs) at both the cluster and the statement level. RESULTS: The first phase resulted in 133 statements, which were reduced to 77 distinct preferred features. Analysis of the sorting data in phase two resulted in six clusters, which were labeled: (1) "Information & Social Support," (2) "Encouragement," (3) "Practical Use," (4) "Self-Monitoring & Feedback," (5) "Planning & Goals," and (6) "Personalization." Both groups rated "Planning & Goals" and "Personalization" as most important. CSs considered the "Encouragement" cluster as least important, whereas HCPs rated "Information & Social Support" the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: These insights can guide the development of interventions to promote a physically active lifestyle among CSs. Applications should prioritize goal setting, planning, and personalization to enhance user engagement. Diverse functionalities with user-friendly navigation are essential. Both stakeholder groups showed similar preferences, reflecting a shared vision for intervention development.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.