ABSTRACT
The influence of digitalization on information-seeking, decision-making properties of patients, therapy monitoring, and patient-physician interactions has and will change the global health sector tremendously. With this study, we add knowledge on the degree of digitalization, digital device availability, the use and availability of home and mobile internet access, and the willingness to use novel forms of patient-physician interactions in a group of gynecologic cancer patients. From July 2017 to March 2022, 150 women with a diagnosis of gynecologic malignancy at the University Hospital of Cologne participated in this questionnaire-based cohort study. Any one of three potential internet access devices (stationary computer, smartphone, or tablet) is owned by 94% of patients and the only patient intrinsic factor that is significantly associated with the property of any one of these internet access devices is age. The Internet is used daily or several times per week to assess information on their disease by 92.8%, 90.1% use the Internet for communicational purposes and 71.9% and 93.6% are willing to communicate with their treating physicians via E-Mail or even novel forms of communication, respectively. In conclusion, the predominant majority of gynecologic cancer patients can be reached by modern internet-based E-Health technologies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Digitalization offers enormous potential in medicine. In the era of digitalization, the development of the use of digital, technical, and informal resources of breast cancer patients and factors influencing the degree of digitization of patients has been insufficiently researched. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the development of the use of digital technical and informal resources in a well-defined patient cohort. METHODS: A longitudinal study on 513 breast cancer patients from 2012 to 2020 was conducted using a questionnaire that included the main aspects of the degree of digitalization, including digital device availability and use, stationary and mobile internet access and use, and communication and information seeking regarding breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: The majority of patients (421/513, 82.1%) owned the technical resources to benefit from eHealth, used the internet to obtain information (292/509, 57.4%), and were willing to use new eHealth solutions (379/426, 89%). Two-thirds of the patients discussed information about their cancer on the internet with their doctor, one-third found additional treatment options on the internet, and 15.3% (44/287) of the patients stated that this had changed their cancer therapy. The degree of digitization is increasing yet still significantly depends on 3 factors: (1) age (whereas 100% [39/39] of the <59-year-old group used the internet in 2020, 92% of the 60 to 69-year-old group [11/12] and only 47% [6/13] of the >70-year-old group used the internet), (2) education (internet use significantly depended on education, as only 51.8% [59/114] of patients with primary school education used the internet, but 82.4% [126/153] with middle school education and 90.3% [213/236] with high school education used the internet; P<.001), and (3) household size (67.7% [111/164] of patients living alone used the internet, whereas 84.7% [287/339] of patients living in a house with ≥2 people used the internet; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: To implement digital solutions in health care, knowledge of the composition and degree of the use of digital technical and informal resources of the patient group for which the respective solution is developed is crucial for success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Register of Clinical Studies DRKS00012364; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012364.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) tract perforation during endoscopy is a rare but severe complication. The aim of this study was to determine predictors of morbidity and mortality after iatrogenic endoscopic perforation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All cases with iatrogenic endoscopic perforation receiving surgery at a tertiary referral center in a 15-year period (2000-2015) were retrospectively analyzed. Demographics, type of endoscopy, site of perforation, operative procedure, morbidity and mortality were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify parameters predicting survival. RESULTS: A total of 106.492 endoscopies were performed, and 82 (0.08%) patients were diagnosed with GI perforation. Most perforations (63.4%) occurred in the lower GI tract, compared to 36.6% in the upper GI tract. In 21 cases (25%), perforation was noticed during endoscopy, whereas 61 perforations (75%) were diagnosed during the further clinical course. Operative care was applied within 24 h in 61%. Surgery of perforations was almost completely performed maintaining the intestinal continuity (68%), whereas diversion was performed in 32%. Mortality was associated with age above 70 (OR 4.89, p = 0.027), ASA class > 3 (OR 4.08, p = 0.018), delayed surgery later than 24 h after perforation (OR 5.9, p = 0.015), peritonitis/mediastinitis intraoperatively (OR 4.68, p = 0.031) and severe postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III (OR 5.12, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of iatrogenic endoscopic perforation is low, although it is associated with a serious impact on morbidity and mortality. Delayed management worsens prognosis. To achieve successful management of endoscopic perforations, early diagnosis is essential in cases of deviation from the normal post-interventional course, especially in elderly.
