ArticleInternet interventions2025
Developing a digital psychosocial support program for men with low-risk prostate cancer during active surveillance.
Article in Internet interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Active surveillance (AS) is a preferred treatment for men with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but its psychosocial impact presents challenges. This study used design thinking to develop a digital psychosocial support program aimed at improving quality of life and health outcomes for men on AS. Methods: The design process followed five phases: Empathy, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. Stakeholder interviews were conducted to generate a problem statement. Brainstorming in the ideation phase conceptualized a self-management application and a framework of the application's features was developed. A prototype was developed in close collaboration with end-users and experts. The testing phase included heuristic evaluations and feedback from patients and healthcare providers. Results: Interviews during the empathy phase highlighted the need for personalized care, timely information, and holistic and tailored support. The defined problem statement aimed at reducing the psychosocial burden and improving coping mechanisms during the first year of AS. Ideation involved multidisciplinary brainstorming sessions, resulting in the concept of a self-management application with features such as information, appointment preparation, self-reporting of medical results, lifestyle guidance, relaxation exercises, and communication tools. A prototype application was developed. Testing showed strengths in navigation and design, with recommendations for improving error handling and help documentation. Feedback led to refinements enhancing usability and clinical integration. Conclusion: This study developed a patient-centered self-management application to address psychosocial challenges in AS. By fostering engagement, self-efficacy, and communication, the tool aims to improve outcomes in prostate cancer management. Future clinical studies will evaluate its effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.