Adapting an in-person patient-caregiver communication intervention to a tailored web-based format

Psycho-Oncology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 336-341

  Zulman, Donna M ^a,b,c   Schafenacker, Ann ^a   Barr, Kathryn L C ^a   Moore, Ian T ^a   Fisher, Jake ^a   McCurdy, Kathryn ^a   Derry, Holly A ^a   Saunders, Edward W ^a   An, Lawrence C ^a,b   Northouse, Laurel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer; caregiving; communication; oncology; social support; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CAREGIVER; COMPUTER PROGRAM; EMOTION; FAMILY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; NURSE; WELLBEING;

ADULT; AGED; CAREGIVERS; COMMUNICATION; COMPUTERS; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84858077551     PISSN: 10579249     EISSN: 10991611     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pon.1900     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, et al,. Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer 2007; 110 (12): 2809-2818. (Pubitemid 350250353)
2. Scott JL, Halford WK, Ward BG,. United we stand? The effects of a couple-coping intervention on adjustment to early stage breast or gynecological cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol 2004; 72 (6): 1122-1135. (Pubitemid 39658545)
3. Strecher VJ,. Internet methods for delivering behavioral and health-related interventions (eHealth). Ann Rev Clin Psychol 2007; 3: 53-76.
4. Gibbons M, Wilson R, Samal L, et al,. Impact of consumer health informatics applications. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 2009. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 188.
5. Kroeze W, Werkman A, Brug J,. A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors. Ann Behav Med 2006; 31 (3): 205-223. (Pubitemid 43825346)
6. Murray E, Burns J, See TS, Lai R, Nazareth I,. Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(4):CD004274.
7. Dubenske LL, Chih MY, Denauer S, Gustafson DH, Cleary JF,. Development and implementation of a clinician reporting system for advanced stage cancer: Initial lessons learned. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (5): 679-686.
8. Northouse LL, Walker J, Schafenacker A, et al,. A family-based program of care for women with recurrent breast cancer and their family members. Oncol Nurs Forum 2002; 29 (10): 1411-1419.
9. Harden J, Margaret F, Joan B, et al,. Factors associated with prostate cancer patients' and their spouses' satisfaction with a family-based intervention. Cancer Nurs 2009; 32 (6): 482-492.
10. Lazarus RS, Folkman S, ed. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer: New York, 1984.
11. Northouse L, Kershaw T, Mood D, Schafenacker A,. Effects of a family intervention on the quality of life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psycho-Oncology 2005; 14 (6): 478-491. (Pubitemid 40883419)
12. Hawkins RP, Kreuter M, Resnicow K, Fishbein M, Dijkstra A,. Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Educ Res 2008; 23 (3): 454-466. (Pubitemid 351786621)
13. McLaughlin H., SMOG: Simple measure of gobbledygook 2008 (Available from:). Accessed 20 July 2008.
14. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Usability.gov: Your guide for developing usable & useful Web sites. 2010 (Available from:). Accessed 12 May 2010.
15. Bastien JM,. Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. Int J Med Inform 2009; 79 (4): e18-e23.
16. Wilson C, Blostein J., Usability techniques: pros and cons of co-participation in usability studies. Usability Interf 1998; 4 (4). (Available from:). Accessed 7 January 2011.
17. Davis FD,. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 1989; 13: 319-329.
18. Brooke J., SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability scale. In: Usability Evaluation in Industry, Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland AL, (eds.). Taylor and Francis: London, 1996.
19. Koyani S, Bailey R, Nall J, Allison S, Mulligan CBK, Tolson M., Research-based web design and usability guidelines. 2004 (Availble from:). Accessed 10 May 2010.