Development and Effectiveness Evaluation of an Interactive E-learning Environment to Enhance Digital Health Literacy in Cancer Patients: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal Front Digit Health

Date 2025 Feb 10

PMID 39925640

Authors

Lukas Lange-Drenth

Hellena Willemer

Mirjam Banse

Anke Ernst

Anne Daubmann

Anja Holz

Christiane Bleich

Susanne Weg-Remers

Holger Schulz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The Internet allows cancer patients to access information about their disease at any time. However, the quality of online information varies widely and is often inaccurate or does not provide all the details patients need to make informed decisions. Additionally, patients' often limited ability to find and evaluate cancer-related online information can lead to misinformation.

Objective: An interactive e-learning environment to promote digital health literacy will be developed and evaluated for effectiveness.

Primary Hypothesis: Cancer patients who use the e-learning environment (IG1.1-IG1.3) or the content of the environment as a non-interactive PDF file (IG2) will show greater improvement in their digital health literacy from baseline to 8 weeks after baseline compared to patients who receive no such intervention, but are referred to a standard information brochure.

Methods: The hypothesis will be tested in a stratified randomized controlled superiority trial with five parallel groups and the primary endpoint of digital health literacy. In an e-learning environment, patients will learn strategies to use when searching for reliable cancer-related online information. During development, a prototype will be refined through focus groups and tested for usability by experts and patients. 660 cancer patients will be recruited using convenience sampling and randomly assigned in a 3:1:1 ratio to IG1.1-IG1.3 (three variants of the environment), IG2, or the control group. Two thirds of the 660 participants will be recruited through the German Cancer Information Service (CIS) and one third through non-CIS routes. Allocation will follow stratified randomization, accounting for recruitment route (CIS vs. non-CIS) and cancer type (breast cancer vs. other cancers), with variable block length. The primary outcome, digital health literacy, will be measured at baseline, 2 weeks, and 8 weeks after baseline.

Conclusion: If the results support the primary hypothesis, then the e-learning environment could empower patients to retrieve more reliable information about their disease. Concerns about the generalizability of the results, since a disproportionate number of inquiries to the CIS come from breast cancer patients, are addressed by a proportionally stratified randomization strategy and diversified recruitment routes.

References

Whitehead L, Seaton P . The Effectiveness of Self-Management Mobile Phone and Tablet Apps in Long-term Condition Management: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2016; 18(5):e97. PMC: 4886099. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4883. View

Hargrave D, Hargrave U, Bouffet E . Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro Oncol. 2006; 8(2):175-82. PMC: 1871939. DOI: 10.1215/15228517-2005-008. View

Xie B . Effects of an eHealth literacy intervention for older adults. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(4):e90. PMC: 3222191. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1880. View

Zhang Y, Xu P, Sun Q, Baral S, Xi L, Wang D . Factors influencing the e-health literacy in cancer patients: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv. 2022; 17(2):425-440. PMC: 9527376. DOI: 10.1007/s11764-022-01260-6. View

Halverson J, Martinez-Donate A, Palta M, Leal T, Lubner S, Walsh M . Health Literacy and Health-Related Quality of Life Among a Population-Based Sample of Cancer Patients. J Health Commun. 2015; 20(11):1320-9. PMC: 4751057. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018638. View

Atarere J, Onyeaka H, Chido-Amajuoyi O, Adewunmi C, Nwaneki C, Dosunmu G . Social media use and health promotion among cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2024; 33(1):e6299. DOI: 10.1002/pon.6299. View

Xu A, Myrie A, Taylor J, Matulewicz R, Gao T, Perez-Rosas V . Instagram and prostate cancer: using validated instruments to assess the quality of information on social media. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021; 25(4):791-793. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00473-7. View

Xie L, Zhang S, Xin M, Zhu M, Lu W, Mo P . Electronic health literacy and health-related outcomes among older adults: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2022; 157:106997. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.106997. View

Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2008; 42(2):377-81. PMC: 2700030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. View

10.

Buntin M, Burke M, Hoaglin M, Blumenthal D . The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011; 30(3):464-71. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178. View

11.

Wasserman M, Baxter N, Rosen B, Burnstein M, Halverson A . Systematic review of internet patient information on colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013; 57(1):64-9. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000011. View

12.

Castleton K, Fong T, Wang-Gillam A, Waqar M, Jeffe D, Kehlenbrink L . A survey of Internet utilization among patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2010; 19(8):1183-90. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-010-0935-5. View

13.

Asbjornsen R, Wentzel J, Smedsrod M, Hjelmesaeth J, Clark M, Solberg Nes L . Identifying Persuasive Design Principles and Behavior Change Techniques Supporting End User Values and Needs in eHealth Interventions for Long-Term Weight Loss Maintenance: Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(11):e22598. PMC: 7735908. DOI: 10.2196/22598. View

14.

Kruse C, Beane A . Health Information Technology Continues to Show Positive Effect on Medical Outcomes: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20(2):e41. PMC: 5818676. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8793. View

15.

Glymour M, Weuve J, Berkman L, Kawachi I, Robins J . When is baseline adjustment useful in analyses of change? An example with education and cognitive change. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 162(3):267-78. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwi187. View

16.

van Deursen A, van Dijk J . Internet skills performance tests: are people ready for eHealth?. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(2):e35. PMC: 3221376. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1581. View

17.

Weiner B, Lewis C, Stanick C, Powell B, Dorsey C, Clary A . Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017; 12(1):108. PMC: 5576104. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3. View

18.

Shahrokni A, Mahmoudzadeh S, Lu B . In whom do cancer survivors trust online and offline?. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014; 15(15):6171-6. DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.15.6171. View

19.

Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Saul J . Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer. 2001; 84(1):48-51. PMC: 2363610. DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1573. View

20.

Rosset M, Reifegerste D, Baumann E, Kludt E, Weg-Remers S . [Trends in cancer information services over 25 years : An analysis of inquiries from patients and relatives made to the Cancer Information Service of the German Cancer Research Center from 1992 to 2016]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2019; 62(9):1120-1128. DOI: 10.1007/s00103-019-02996-w. View