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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Wright, B.A., Physical disability – a psychological approach. 1960.
People with AIDS Advisory Committee. The Denver principles, vol. 20. Statement from the People with AIDS Advisory Committee; 1983. p. 2019.
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.
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.
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.
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for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance.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.
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.
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.
Food and Drug Administration. Qualification process for drug development tools guidance for industry and FDA staff. 2014.
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.
Gnanasakthy A, et al. A review of patient-reported outcome labeling in the United States (2011–2015). Value Health. 2017;20(3):420–9.
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.
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.
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.
Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ. 2001;322(7297):1297–300.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ivry RB, Keele SW. Timing functions of the cerebellum. J Cogn Neurosci. 1989;1(2):136–52.
Wilson EV. Patient-centered e-health. IGI Global; 2008.
Andrews C. Social media recruitment. Appl Clin Trials. 2012;21(11):32.
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.
De Martino I, et al. Social media for patients: benefits and drawbacks. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10(1):141–5.
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.
Pomey, M.-P. and L. Paule, Patient Engagement: The Quebec Path (Commentary). HealthcarePapers. 2016;16(2):80–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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)