Intelligent Sexual Health Information Support System for Gynecological Cancer Patients
9 septembre 2026 mis à jour par: Jian Tao Lee, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
Intelligent Sexual Health LillyBot Information Support System for Gynecological Cancer Patients: Development, Test and Evaluation of Longitudinal Effects
This study aims to develop the LillyBot Smart Sexual Health Consultation System, designed to meet the sexual health learning and consultation needs of gynecological cancer (GC) patients in Taiwan.
Grounded in the Transtheoretical Model (TTM), this system integrates AI chatbot technology and mobile health (mHealth) to provide real-time, personalized sexual health education and consultations, ultimately improving the overall sexual well-being of GC patients.
Aperçu de l'étude
Statut
Recrutement
Les conditions
Description détaillée
In the first year, the study established the mHealth-assisted Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement (mHealth-assisted PROM) module and conducted a comprehensive sexual health needs assessment.
Based on these findings, the second-year study focuses on designing and developing the LillyBot system, ensuring its responsiveness to the specific needs of GC patients.
The third-year study will employ a prospective pretest-posttest randomized control group design with a single-blind approach.
A total of 90 GC patients will be recruited from a medical center in northern Taiwan and randomly assigned through stratified randomization into three groups.
The first experimental group will receive LillyBot-based sexual health consultations, while the second experimental group will receive online consultations with sexual health professionals.
The control group will receive online consultations with non-specialists.
Data will be collected at baseline (T0), one month post-intervention (T1), and three months (T2) to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness.
Primary outcomes will include sexual distress, sexual knowledge, sexual attitudes, sexual self-efficacy, sexual behaviors, and sexual satisfaction, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of changes over time.
Type d'étude
Interventionnel
Inscription (Estimé)
90
Phase
- N'est pas applicable
Contacts et emplacements
Cette section fournit les coordonnées de ceux qui mènent l'étude et des informations sur le lieu où cette étude est menée.
Coordonnées de l'étude
- Nom: Jian Tao LEE, Professor
- Numéro de téléphone: 5197 886-03-2118800
- E-mail: jtlee@gap.cgu.edu.tw
Lieux d'étude
-
-
Guishan
-
Taoyuan, Guishan, Taïwan, 333
- Recrutement
- Cheng Gung Memorial Hospital
-
Contact:
- Jian Tao LEE, Professor
- Numéro de téléphone: 5197 886-03-2118800
- E-mail: jtlee@gap.cgu.edu.tw
-
-
Critères de participation
Les chercheurs recherchent des personnes qui correspondent à une certaine description, appelée critères d'éligibilité. Certains exemples de ces critères sont l'état de santé général d'une personne ou des traitements antérieurs.
Critère d'éligibilité
Âges éligibles pour étudier
- Adulte
- Adulte plus âgé
Accepte les volontaires sains
Non
La description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Women diagnosed with gynecologic cancer within 6 months prior to enrollment.
- Women receiving cancer treatment at the recruiting hospital.
- Aged 20 to 70 years, inclusive.
- Have a regular partner.
- Possesses and is able to use an internet-enabled mobile device (such as a smartphone or iPad).
- Able to clearly communicate and read/write in Mandarin or Taiwanese.
Exclusion Criteria:
- History of other malignant tumors.
- Intellectual disability or mental disorders.
Plan d'étude
Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan d'étude, y compris la façon dont l'étude est conçue et ce que l'étude mesure.
Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?
Détails de conception
- Objectif principal: Soins de soutien
- Répartition: Randomisé
- Modèle interventionnel: Affectation parallèle
- Masquage: Seul
Armes et Interventions
Groupe de participants / Bras |
Intervention / Traitement |
|---|---|
|
Comparateur actif: The control group
The control group will not use the system and will continue to receive usual gynecologic cancer care.
|
The control group will receive Usual Gynecologic Cancer Care.Data will be collected at baseline (T0), one month post-intervention (T1), and three months (T2) to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness.
|
|
Expérimental: The experimental group A -Proactive Nurse Support Group
The experimental group A will receive the intelligent sexual health information support system along with proactive nurse researcher (registered nurse) contact.
|
The experimental group A will receivereceive the intelligent sexual health information support system along with proactive nurse researcher (registered nurse) contact.Data will be collected at baseline (T0), one month post-intervention (T1), and three months (T2) to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness.
|
|
Expérimental: The experimental group B -Alert-Triggered Nurse Support Group
The experimental group B will receive the intelligent sexual health information support system with nurse researcher contact only upon a triggered safety alert.
|
The experimental group B will receive the intelligent sexual health information support system with nurse researcher contact only upon a triggered safety alert.Data will be collected at baseline (T0), one month post-intervention (T1), and three months (T2) to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness.
|
Que mesure l'étude ?
Principaux critères de jugement
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
The Women Sexual Distress
Délai: Data were collected at baseline
|
The research project assessed changes in female sexual distress using a self-developed Female Sexual Distress Scale, developed with reference to the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) (Derogatis, Clayton, et al., 2008) and relevant literature.
The scale consists of 22 items covering four dimensions of sexual health: comprehensive, physiological, psychological, and social.
Items assess the frequency of emotional distress, including worry, depression, stress, low self-esteem, guilt, and distress.
A 5-point Likert scale is used: 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = always.
The total score ranges from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating greater sexual distress.
Cronbach's alpha was 0.96, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 1.00.
|
Data were collected at baseline
|
|
The Women Sexual Distress
Délai: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed changes in female sexual distress using a self-developed Female Sexual Distress Scale, developed with reference to the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) (Derogatis, Clayton, et al., 2008) and relevant literature.
The scale consists of 22 items covering four dimensions of sexual health: comprehensive, physiological, psychological, and social.
Items assess the frequency of emotional distress, including worry, depression, stress, low self-esteem, guilt, and distress.
A 5-point Likert scale is used: 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = always.
The total score ranges from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating greater sexual distress.
Cronbach's alpha was 0.96, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 1.00.
|
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
|
The Women Sexual Distress
Délai: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed changes in female sexual distress using a self-developed Female Sexual Distress Scale, developed with reference to the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) (Derogatis, Clayton, et al., 2008) and relevant literature.
The scale consists of 22 items covering four dimensions of sexual health: comprehensive, physiological, psychological, and social.
Items assess the frequency of emotional distress, including worry, depression, stress, low self-esteem, guilt, and distress.
A 5-point Likert scale is used: 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = always.
The total score ranges from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating greater sexual distress.
Cronbach's alpha was 0.96, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 1.00.
|
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Gynecological Cancer Sexual Knowledge
Délai: Data were collected at baseline
|
The research project assessed gynecologic cancer sexual health knowledge using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Health Knowledge Scale developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale assesses women's knowledge of gynecologic cancer, its treatment, and their effects on sexual health and management.
It consists of 22 multiple-choice items covering four dimensions: basic concepts of sexuality, effects of gynecologic cancer on sexual health, effects of gynecologic cancer treatment on sexual health, and management of sexual health problems related to gynecologic cancer.
Each item has three response options: true, false, and don't know.
Correct answers receive 1 point; incorrect and "don't know" responses receive 0 points.
The total score ranges from 0 to 22, with higher scores indicating greater sexual health knowledge.
The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 was 0.81, Cronbach's alpha was 0.77, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.94 (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at baseline
|
|
Gynecological Cancer Sexual Knowledge
Délai: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed gynecologic cancer sexual health knowledge using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Health Knowledge Scale developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale assesses women's knowledge of gynecologic cancer, its treatment, and their effects on sexual health and management.
It consists of 22 multiple-choice items covering four dimensions: basic concepts of sexuality, effects of gynecologic cancer on sexual health, effects of gynecologic cancer treatment on sexual health, and management of sexual health problems related to gynecologic cancer.
Each item has three response options: true, false, and don't know.
Correct answers receive 1 point; incorrect and "don't know" responses receive 0 points.
The total score ranges from 0 to 22, with higher scores indicating greater sexual health knowledge.
The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 was 0.81, Cronbach's alpha was 0.77, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.94 (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Gynecological Cancer Sexual Knowledge
Délai: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed gynecologic cancer sexual health knowledge using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Health Knowledge Scale developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale assesses women's knowledge of gynecologic cancer, its treatment, and their effects on sexual health and management.
It consists of 22 multiple-choice items covering four dimensions: basic concepts of sexuality, effects of gynecologic cancer on sexual health, effects of gynecologic cancer treatment on sexual health, and management of sexual health problems related to gynecologic cancer.
Each item has three response options: true, false, and don't know.
Correct answers receive 1 point; incorrect and "don't know" responses receive 0 points.
The total score ranges from 0 to 22, with higher scores indicating greater sexual health knowledge.
The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 was 0.81, Cronbach's alpha was 0.77, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.94 (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Gynecological Cancer Sexual Attitudes
Délai: Data were collected at baseline
|
The research project assessed attitudes toward sexual health using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Attitudes Scale developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale assesses women's subjective attitudes and perceptions regarding gynecologic cancer, its treatment, sexual health, and sexual life.
It consists of 25 items covering five dimensions: attitudes toward sexual communication between partners, perceptions of sexual relationships in couples with gynecologic cancer (intimate relationships), perceptions of body image after treatment, attitudes toward sexual health education for gynecologic cancer, and perceptions of gynecologic cancer and sexuality.
A 5-point Likert scale is used, ranging from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree.
Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward sexual health.
Test-retest reliability was 0.92, Cronbach's alpha was 0.90, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.94 (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at baseline
|
|
Gynecological Cancer Sexual Attitudes
Délai: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed attitudes toward sexual health using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Attitudes Scale developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale assesses women's subjective attitudes and perceptions regarding gynecologic cancer, its treatment, sexual health, and sexual life.
It consists of 25 items covering five dimensions: attitudes toward sexual communication between partners, perceptions of sexual relationships in couples with gynecologic cancer (intimate relationships), perceptions of body image after treatment, attitudes toward sexual health education for gynecologic cancer, and perceptions of gynecologic cancer and sexuality.
A 5-point Likert scale is used, ranging from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree.
Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward sexual health.
Test-retest reliability was 0.92, Cronbach's alpha was 0.90, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.94 (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Gynecological Cancer Sexual Attitudes
Délai: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed attitudes toward sexual health using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Attitudes Scale developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale assesses women's subjective attitudes and perceptions regarding gynecologic cancer, its treatment, sexual health, and sexual life.
It consists of 25 items covering five dimensions: attitudes toward sexual communication between partners, perceptions of sexual relationships in couples with gynecologic cancer (intimate relationships), perceptions of body image after treatment, attitudes toward sexual health education for gynecologic cancer, and perceptions of gynecologic cancer and sexuality.
A 5-point Likert scale is used, ranging from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree.
Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward sexual health.
Test-retest reliability was 0.92, Cronbach's alpha was 0.90, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.94 (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Sexual Self-Efficacy
Délai: Data were collected at baseline
|
The research project assessed sexual self-efficacy using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Lee et al. (2019).
The scale evaluates self-efficacy related to sexual health among women with gynecologic cancer and consists of 27 items covering three dimensions: self-efficacy in promoting sexual physiological health, self-efficacy in promoting sexual psychological health, and sexual communication self-efficacy.
A 5-point response scale is used to assess confidence in performing each ability, ranging from 0 = no confidence at all to 100 = very confident.
Higher scores indicate greater sexual self-efficacy.
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.98 and a Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.88 (Lee et al., 2019).
|
Data were collected at baseline
|
|
Sexual Self-Efficacy
Délai: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed sexual self-efficacy using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Lee et al. (2019).
The scale evaluates self-efficacy related to sexual health among women with gynecologic cancer and consists of 27 items covering three dimensions: self-efficacy in promoting sexual physiological health, self-efficacy in promoting sexual psychological health, and sexual communication self-efficacy.
A 5-point response scale is used to assess confidence in performing each ability, ranging from 0 = no confidence at all to 100 = very confident.
Higher scores indicate greater sexual self-efficacy.
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.98 and a Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.88 (Lee et al., 2019).
|
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Sexual Self-Efficacy
Délai: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed sexual self-efficacy using the Gynecologic Cancer Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Lee et al. (2019).
The scale evaluates self-efficacy related to sexual health among women with gynecologic cancer and consists of 27 items covering three dimensions: self-efficacy in promoting sexual physiological health, self-efficacy in promoting sexual psychological health, and sexual communication self-efficacy.
A 5-point response scale is used to assess confidence in performing each ability, ranging from 0 = no confidence at all to 100 = very confident.
Higher scores indicate greater sexual self-efficacy.
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.98 and a Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.88 (Lee et al., 2019).
|
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Diversity of sexual activity
Délai: Data were collected at baseline
|
The research project assessed sexual activity using the Diversity of Sexual Activity Scale (DSA) developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale evaluates the types of sexual activities practiced by individuals or with their partners.
It includes 12 types of sexual activities.
Participants indicate the intimate activities they engage in, the frequency of each activity, and their satisfaction with each activity.
Frequency is assessed using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, to 4 = always.
Satisfaction is assessed using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with the activity.
Cronbach's alpha was 0.976 in a postpartum sample (Lee & Tsai, 2012) and 0.921 in women with gynecologic cancer (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at baseline
|
|
Diversity of sexual activity
Délai: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed sexual activity using the Diversity of Sexual Activity Scale (DSA) developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale evaluates the types of sexual activities practiced by individuals or with their partners.
It includes 12 types of sexual activities.
Participants indicate the intimate activities they engage in, the frequency of each activity, and their satisfaction with each activity.
Frequency is assessed using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, to 4 = always.
Satisfaction is assessed using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with the activity.
Cronbach's alpha was 0.976 in a postpartum sample (Lee & Tsai, 2012) and 0.921 in women with gynecologic cancer (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Diversity of sexual activity
Délai: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed sexual activity using the Diversity of Sexual Activity Scale (DSA) developed by Lee et al. (2020).
The scale evaluates the types of sexual activities practiced by individuals or with their partners.
It includes 12 types of sexual activities.
Participants indicate the intimate activities they engage in, the frequency of each activity, and their satisfaction with each activity.
Frequency is assessed using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, to 4 = always.
Satisfaction is assessed using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with the activity.
Cronbach's alpha was 0.976 in a postpartum sample (Lee & Tsai, 2012) and 0.921 in women with gynecologic cancer (Lee et al., 2020).
|
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Sexual Satisfaction
Délai: Data were collected at baseline
|
The research project assessed female sexual satisfaction using the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale-Short Form, Chinese version (NSSS-SC), translated by Wu et al. (2023).
The scale consists of 12 items and uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all satisfied to 5 = extremely satisfied.
The total score ranges from 12 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with sexual life.
Confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit (CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.014).
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96 (Wu et al., 2023).
|
Data were collected at baseline
|
|
Sexual Satisfaction
Délai: Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed female sexual satisfaction using the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale-Short Form, Chinese version (NSSS-SC), translated by Wu et al. (2023).
The scale consists of 12 items and uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all satisfied to 5 = extremely satisfied.
The total score ranges from 12 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with sexual life.
Confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit (CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.014).
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96 (Wu et al., 2023).
|
Data were collected at 1 months after the Interventions.
|
|
Sexual Satisfaction
Délai: Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
The research project assessed female sexual satisfaction using the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale-Short Form, Chinese version (NSSS-SC), translated by Wu et al. (2023).
The scale consists of 12 items and uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all satisfied to 5 = extremely satisfied.
The total score ranges from 12 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with sexual life.
Confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit (CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.014).
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96 (Wu et al., 2023).
|
Data were collected at 3 months after the Interventions.
|
Collaborateurs et enquêteurs
C'est ici que vous trouverez les personnes et les organisations impliquées dans cette étude.
Parrainer
Collaborateurs
Publications et liens utiles
La personne responsable de la saisie des informations sur l'étude fournit volontairement ces publications. Il peut s'agir de tout ce qui concerne l'étude.
Publications générales
- Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997 Sep-Oct;12(1):38-48. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38.
- Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332.
- Huffman LB, Hartenbach EM, Carter J, Rash JK, Kushner DM. Maintaining sexual health throughout gynecologic cancer survivorship: A comprehensive review and clinical guide. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Feb;140(2):359-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.010. Epub 2015 Nov 7.
- Lee JT, Kuo HY, Huang KG, Lin JR, Chen ML. Diversity of sexual activity and correlates among women with gynecological cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Nov;159(2):503-508. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.08.005. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
- Lee JT, Yen HW. Randomized controlled evaluation of a theory-based postpartum sexual health education programme. J Adv Nurs. 2007 Nov;60(4):389-401. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04395.x.
- Lee JT, Tsai JL. Transtheoretical model-based postpartum sexual health education program improves women's sexual behaviors and sexual health. J Sex Med. 2012 Apr;9(4):986-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02419.x. Epub 2011 Aug 3.
- Fischer OJ, Marguerie M, Brotto LA. Sexual Function, Quality of Life, and Experiences of Women with Ovarian Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Study. Sex Med. 2019 Dec;7(4):530-539. doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2019.07.005. Epub 2019 Sep 7.
- Bricker JB, Mull KE, Kientz JA, Vilardaga R, Mercer LD, Akioka KJ, Heffner JL. Randomized, controlled pilot trial of a smartphone app for smoking cessation using acceptance and commitment therapy. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014 Oct 1;143:87-94. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.07.006. Epub 2014 Jul 17.
- Zeng, Y., Luo, T., Xie, H., Huang, M., & Cheng, A. S.（2012）。Quality of life and sexuality in female gynecologic cancer survivors: A qualitative study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(9), 2546-2557.
- Zarski AC, Velten J, Knauer J, Berking M, Ebert DD. Internet- and mobile-based psychological interventions for sexual dysfunctions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Sep 9;5(1):139. doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00670-1.
- Zamora, J., Liu, L., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Ensuring data security in mobile health applications: A review of best practices. Journal of Medical Systems, 41(5), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0721-8
- Wu, X., Yao, S., & Zhang, L. (2023). Translation and validation of the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale-Short Form (NSSS-SC) in Chinese. Sexual Health Research, 15(2), 123-135.
- World Health Organization. (2006). Defining sexual health Report of a technical consultation on sexual health. http://www. who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/sexual_health/defining_sexual_health.pdf
- Wei K, Fritz C, Rajasekaran K. Answering head and neck cancer questions: An assessment of ChatGPT responses. Am J Otolaryngol. 2024 Jan-Feb;45(1):104085. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.104085. Epub 2023 Oct 5.
- Wang A, Qian Z, Briggs L, Cole AP, Reis LO, Trinh QD. The Use of Chatbots in Oncological Care: A Narrative Review. Int J Gen Med. 2023 May 1;16:1591-1602. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S408208. eCollection 2023.
- Tung TH, Chen HW, Chou HH, Tsai JL, Yang YC, Lee JT. Does a one-session sexual health education program improve sexual confidence in patients with cervical cancer? A transtheoretical model-based clinical study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024 Jan;309(1):249-258. doi: 10.1007/s00404-023-07141-2. Epub 2023 Jul 26.
- Syme ML, Delaney E, Wachen JS, Gosian J, Moye J. Sexual self-esteem and psychosocial functioning in military veterans after cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2013;31(1):1-12. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2012.741096.
- Shi Y, Cai J, Wu Z, Jiang L, Xiong G, Gan X, Wang X. Effects of a nurse-led positive psychology intervention on sexual function, depression and subjective well-being in postoperative patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Nov;111:103768. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103768. Epub 2020 Sep 3.
- Schoenfeld EA, Loving TJ, Pope MT, Huston TL, Stulhofer A. Does Sex Really Matter? Examining the Connections Between Spouses' Nonsexual Behaviors, Sexual Frequency, Sexual Satisfaction, and Marital Satisfaction. Arch Sex Behav. 2017 Feb;46(2):489-501. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0672-4. Epub 2016 Jan 5.
- Schmidlen T, Schwartz M, DiLoreto K, Kirchner HL, Sturm AC. Patient assessment of chatbots for the scalable delivery of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 2019 Dec;28(6):1166-1177. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1169. Epub 2019 Sep 24.
- Reb AM, Cope DG. Quality of Life and Supportive Care Needs of Gynecologic Cancer Survivors. West J Nurs Res. 2019 Oct;41(10):1385-1406. doi: 10.1177/0193945919846901. Epub 2019 May 12.
- Razzak MA, Islam MN, Aadeeb MS, Tasnim T. Digital health interventions for cervical cancer care: A systematic review and future research opportunities. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 15;18(12):e0296015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296015. eCollection 2023.
- Papadakos J, Bussiere-Cote S, Abdelmutti N, Catton P, Friedman AJ, Massey C, Urowitz S, Ferguson SE. Informational needs of gynecologic cancer survivors. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Mar;124(3):452-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.10.030. Epub 2011 Oct 30.
- Lee JT, Lin HH, Tsai JL, Chen CP, Huang KG, Lien AS. Transformation of Sexual Expression in Taiwanese Women After Treatment for Gynecological Cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2015 Nov-Dec;38(6):475-83. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000224.
- Kirk D, van Eijnatten E, Camps G. Comparison of Answers between ChatGPT and Human Dieticians to Common Nutrition Questions. J Nutr Metab. 2023 Nov 7;2023:5548684. doi: 10.1155/2023/5548684. eCollection 2023.
- Hung YC, Chaker SC, Sigel M, Saad M, Slater ED. Comparison of Patient Education Materials Generated by Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer Versus Experts: An Innovative Way to Increase Readability of Patient Education Materials. Ann Plast Surg. 2023 Oct 1;91(4):409-412. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003634.
- Schafer A, Jiru-Hillmann S, Widmann J, Montellano FA, Salmen J, Pryss R, Wockel A, Heuschmann PU. Systematic review on the effectiveness of mobile health applications on mental health of breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2025 Feb;19(1):1-17. doi: 10.1007/s11764-023-01470-6. Epub 2023 Oct 31.
- Haase KR, Sattar S, Holtslander L, Thomas R. The role of Internet cancer information for older adults with cancer: Perspectives of older adults and healthcare professionals. Int J Older People Nurs. 2020 Jun;15(2):e12303. doi: 10.1111/opn.12303. Epub 2020 Jan 10.
- Guntupalli SR, Sheeder J, Ioffe Y, Tergas A, Wright JD, Davidson SA, Behbakht K, Flink DM. Sexual and Marital Dysfunction in Women With Gynecologic Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Mar;27(3):603-607. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000906.
- Goodman RS, Patrinely JR, Stone CA Jr, Zimmerman E, Donald RR, Chang SS, Berkowitz ST, Finn AP, Jahangir E, Scoville EA, Reese TS, Friedman DL, Bastarache JA, van der Heijden YF, Wright JJ, Ye F, Carter N, Alexander MR, Choe JH, Chastain CA, Zic JA, Horst SN, Turker I, Agarwal R, Osmundson E, Idrees K, Kiernan CM, Padmanabhan C, Bailey CE, Schlegel CE, Chambless LB, Gibson MK, Osterman TJ, Wheless LE, Johnson DB. Accuracy and Reliability of Chatbot Responses to Physician Questions. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Oct 2;6(10):e2336483. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36483.
- Faller H, Koch U, Brahler E, Harter M, Keller M, Schulz H, Wegscheider K, Weis J, Boehncke A, Hund B, Reuter K, Richard M, Sehner S, Szalai C, Wittchen HU, Mehnert A. Satisfaction with information and unmet information needs in men and women with cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2016 Feb;10(1):62-70. doi: 10.1007/s11764-015-0451-1. Epub 2015 May 9.
- Charbonneau DH, Hightower S, Katz A, Zhang K, Abrams J, Senft N, Beebe-Dimmer JL, Heath E, Eaton T, Thompson HS. Smartphone apps for cancer: A content analysis of the digital health marketplace. Digit Health. 2020 Feb 11;6:2055207620905413. doi: 10.1177/2055207620905413. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.
Dates d'enregistrement des études
Ces dates suivent la progression des dossiers d'étude et des soumissions de résultats sommaires à ClinicalTrials.gov. Les dossiers d'étude et les résultats rapportés sont examinés par la Bibliothèque nationale de médecine (NLM) pour s'assurer qu'ils répondent à des normes de contrôle de qualité spécifiques avant d'être publiés sur le site Web public.
Dates principales de l'étude
Début de l'étude (Réel)
17 juin 2026
Achèvement primaire (Estimé)
1 décembre 2026
Achèvement de l'étude (Estimé)
1 décembre 2026
Dates d'inscription aux études
Première soumission
26 août 2026
Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
26 août 2026
Première publication (Réel)
31 août 2026
Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude
Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)
11 septembre 2026
Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
9 septembre 2026
Dernière vérification
1 août 2026
Plus d'information
Termes liés à cette étude
Termes MeSH pertinents supplémentaires
Autres numéros d'identification d'étude
- 112-2629-H-182-001-SS2
Plan pour les données individuelles des participants (IPD)
Prévoyez-vous de partager les données individuelles des participants (DPI) ?
NON
Informations sur les médicaments et les dispositifs, documents d'étude
Étudie un produit pharmaceutique réglementé par la FDA américaine
Non
Étudie un produit d'appareil réglementé par la FDA américaine
Non
Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .