Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2019

Regional and metropolitan patients have similar attitudes about using smartphone-delivered healthcare in the routine setting  (#172)

Richard C Khor 1 , Lilly Shen 1 , Jonathan M Tomaszewski 2 , Simone Reeves 2 , Michelle Braybrook 2 , Wee L Ong 1 3 4 5
  1. Radiation Oncology, Austin Health, Melbourne
  2. Radiation Oncology, Ballarat-Austin Radiation Oncology Centre, Ballarat, VIC, Australia
  3. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
  4. School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  5. Health and Biomedical Informatics Centre, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic, Australia

Aim: There is increasing interest in integrating smartphone applications (apps) into routine radiation oncology (RO) care to improve clinician-patient communication, particularly for symptom monitoring and management, or to reduce hardware costs. We aimed to evaluate patients’ willingness to utilise apps in RO care in both the regional and metropolitan context.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey of patients attending RO outpatient clinics at a metropolitan and a regional cancer centre in Victoria was conducted over a 6-week period. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were willing to use apps in routine RO care. Differences in characteristics between metropolitan and regional patients and their willingness to use apps were evaluated.

Results:  202 patients (102 metropolitan and 100 regional) completed the survey. There was no significant difference in age between patients from either centre (p=0.3). Patients in regional centres were more likely to be from the lowest socioeconomic quintiles compared to patients in metropolitan centres (37% vs. 11%, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in education level between regional and metropolitan patients, with 24% and 26% respectively with university education, and 22% and 24% respectively who were TAFE educated (p=0.6). Patients in metropolitan centres were more likely to be already using email as a mode of healthcare interaction (22% vs 10%, p=0.02). Overall, 177 (88%) patients owned smartphones, with no difference in ownership between patients in metropolitan and regional centres (p=0.8). Of these, two-thirds (114/177) used apps in daily life, but only half (97/177) were willing to use apps in routine care. No difference in willingness to use apps was observed between patients from the metropolitan (53%) compared with regional centres (57%) (p=0.6).

Conclusion: Over half of the patients were willing to use apps in routine RO care, with no difference between regional and metropolitan patient uptake metrics.