Skip to main content
Book cover

Handbook of Quality of Life in Cancer pp 123–131Cite as

Using New Technologies in Quality of Life Assessment

  • 147 Accesses

Abstract

The use of word ‘patient’ has evolved over time and now it encompasses both the person seeking health services and his/her social network including family, friends, and community. Both in research and in clinical care, involvement of patients as a partner has increased, suggesting collaborative approach to patient care. There are several ways in which data is obtained patients and his/her interaction with the others and health services. Various technologies are currently used to capture patient-reported outcomes, in particular the use of social media platforms has gained popularity as a source of information that is important to the patient.

Keywords

  • Health-related quality of life
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Technology
  • Social media

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-84702-9_8
  • Chapter length: 9 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-84702-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 8.1
Fig. 8.2
Fig. 8.3

References

  1. Wright, B.A., Physical disability – a psychological approach. 1960.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. People with AIDS Advisory Committee. The Denver principles, vol. 20. Statement from the People with AIDS Advisory Committee; 1983. p. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Institute of Medicine. Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America. Committee on the Learning Health Care System; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pomey M, et al. Le partenariat de soins et de services: une voix/voie pour donner un sens à la loi 10?(2015). Le point en administration de la santé. 2015;11(1):38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carman KL, et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff. 2013;32(2):223–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, et al. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:1–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Hsieh C-K, et al. Lifestreams: a modular sense-making toolset for identifying important patterns from everyday life. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Use, C.f.M.P.f.H. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. London: European Medicines Agency; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Food and Drug Administration. Qualification process for drug development tools guidance for industry and FDA staff. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bourgeois J, et al. Harvesting green miles from my roof: an investigation into self-sufficient mobility with electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gnanasakthy A, et al. A review of patient-reported outcome labeling in the United States (2011–2015). Value Health. 2017;20(3):420–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Gnanasakthy A, et al. A review of patient-reported outcome labels in the United States: 2006 to 2010. Value Health. 2012;15(3):437–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Promadej-Lanier N, et al. Development and evaluation of a vaginal ring device for sustained delivery of HIV microbicides to non-human primates. J Med Primatol. 2009;38(4):263–71.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayo NE, et al. Montreal accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series – paper 2: terminology proposed to measure what matters in health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:119–24.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ. 2001;322(7297):1297–300.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Jacobsen PB, Davis K, Cella D. Assessing quality of life in research and clinical practice. Oncology (Williston Park). 2002;16(9 Suppl 10):133–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Basch E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer drug development and US regulatory review: perspectives from industry, the Food and Drug Administration, and the patient. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(3):375–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Weigold A, Weigold IK, Russell EJ. Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(1):53–70.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Coons SJ, et al. Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: the past, present, and promise of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient-Patient-Cent Outcomes Res. 2015;8(4):301–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Ivry RB, Keele SW. Timing functions of the cerebellum. J Cogn Neurosci. 1989;1(2):136–52.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilson EV. Patient-centered e-health. IGI Global; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Andrews C. Social media recruitment. Appl Clin Trials. 2012;21(11):32.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC social media tools guidelines and best practices, 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/SocialMedia/Tools/guidelines/. Accessed 2 Apr 2010.

  24. De Martino I, et al. Social media for patients: benefits and drawbacks. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10(1):141–5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Comité sur les pratiques collaboratives et la formation interprofessionnelle. Guide d’implantation du partenariat de soins et de services, vers une collaboration optimale entre intervenants et avec le patient. 2013. Montréal, QC: Réseau universitaire integré de santé (RUIS) de l’Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pomey, M.-P. and L. Paule, Patient Engagement: The Quebec Path (Commentary). HealthcarePapers. 2016;16(2):80–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Kedar K. V. Mate

Authors
  1. Kedar K. V. Mate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kedar K. V. Mate .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK

    Angelos P. Kassianos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mate, K.K.V. (2022). Using New Technologies in Quality of Life Assessment. In: Kassianos, A.P. (eds) Handbook of Quality of Life in Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84702-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84702-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84701-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84702-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)