Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Understanding the multilevel factors influencing the implementation of digital health interventions for supportive care in Adolescents and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivorship: determinants of adopting mindfulness-based mobile applications

Implementation Science Communications volume 5, Article number: 76 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Adolescents and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivors are at risk for psychological distress due to their unique developmental and medical needs. Healthcare providers can leverage the convenience and appeal of technology to provide supportive care for this vulnerable population. Using evidence-based mindfulness-based mobile interventions as a case example, the goal of this study was to identify key patient-, provider-, and organization-level barriers and facilitators to supportive care and implementing digital health interventions in AYA survivorship care.

Methods

Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders including AYA survivors (n = 10; between 18–29 years old) and clinical providers and administrators (n = 10). Interviews were transcribed and deductively mapped using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) complementary frameworks.

Results

Results indicated that factors like cost and patients’ needs and resources were prevalent among both survivors and providers. There were key differences between providers and AYA survivors. Providers’ adoption and promotion of digital health interventions were influenced most strongly by contextual factors, including available resources (Inner Setting), culture (Outer Setting), and networks and communications (Outer Setting). On the other hand, survivors emphasized individual and intervention-related factors; they reported that social influence and knowledge influenced their adoption and use of digital health interventions, including meditation apps.

Conclusions

These results identified barriers and facilitators to the adoption of supportive care digital health interventions from multiple stakeholders. Results can be used to guide the development of implementation strategies to improve the uptake of digital health interventions in survivorship care, ultimately improving the psychosocial well-being of AYA cancer survivors.

Peer Review reports

Background

Adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of childhood cancer are recognized as a vulnerable group with unique emotional, social, and practical needs due to the intersection of cancer survivorship and normal developmental processes [1]. While the developmental transition can become overwhelming and stressful in and of itself, managing cancer survivorship care during this time can be extremely difficult [2]. Studies suggest that AYA survivors of childhood cancer are at increased risk of poor mental health compared to non-cancer peers [3]. While 20–25% of AYA survivors of childhood cancer report experiencing impaired mental health [4, 5], many more experience subclinical levels of distress potentially impacting their daily functioning. However, most AYA cancer survivors do not receive formal psychological treatment [6, 7], suggesting that alternative interventions are needed to reach and support more survivors.

Routine medical follow-up care offers an opportunity to assess for and refer or treat mental health problems among childhood cancer survivors [8]. Providers such as oncologists and nurses can leverage these opportunities to provide psychosocial and supportive care during follow-up visits. For example, a social worker or psychologist might assess survivors’ psychosocial functioning and provide a psychosocial care plan during their clinic visits [9]. Furthermore, providers can promote supportive care through digital health interventions as they are cost-effective [10] and efficacious in alleviating stress and improving well-being among young adult cancer survivors [11]. Most AYA cancer survivors own a mobile phone, regularly use mobile apps, and are interested in accessing supportive care information via mobile apps [12, 13] which make digital health interventions appealing options.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) such as meditation and other mindfulness modalities have become increasingly popular [14] and have shown efficacy in improving psychological distress among cancer patients [15]. The Society of Integrative Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines have recommended meditation as a practice for reducing anxiety and stress [16]. Mindfulness-based digital health interventions could offer alternative options for supportive care in AYA survivorship clinical settings without interfering with the clinic workflow. Unlike traditional mindfulness interventions, mobile apps can be tailored to the individual user, with brief practice (e.g., 10 minutes a day) and goals adjusted to fit one’s schedule [17]. Mobile apps have also been demonstrated to be an effective delivery medium for mindfulness training [17], and have demonstrated efficacy in improving mental health outcomes across the general and cancer populations [17,18,19,20]. Evidenced-based mindfulness mobile apps have been demonstrated to be a good alternative to address AYA cancer survivors’ unmet psychosocial needs [21]. Providers can support patients by leveraging the convenience (e.g., making simple recommendations/referrals) and appeal of technology (e.g., AYA as “digital natives” [22]).

However, it is difficult to translate and implement research-based interventions into actual clinical practice [23], especially digital health interventions in healthcare settings [24, 25]. Digital health interventions have to be embedded in the workflows and tools they regularly use for sustaining adoption [24]. When removing digital health interventions from controlled trials to real-world settings, low uptake and even abandonments become common [24, 25]. Thus, it is important to utilize systematic approaches to guide the process of implementing these interventions [26]. More specifically, there is a need for a systematic process to plan for implementation with the consideration of determinants, mechanisms, and strategies for effecting change [27]. One of which is to develop effective implementation strategies, that is, approaches or techniques that are used to enhance the adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up (or spread) of the intervention [28].

To develop effective implementation strategies, we first need to understand the determinants (i.e., barriers, obstacles, enablers, and facilitators) within the local context [29, 30], which is often multilevel. Thus, the goal of this study is to identify potential barriers and facilitators to adopting digital health interventions for supportive care in AYA survivorship care (i.e., acceptability and adoption). Using mindfulness-based mobile app interventions as a case example, results can guide the development of implementation strategies to improve the uptake of digital health interventions for supportive care in practice, ultimately improving the psychosocial well-being of AYA cancer survivors [27]. Focusing on mindfulness-based mobile app interventions as a case example allows participants to concretely describe both digital delivery and the intervention content.

Methods

Theoretical approach

A multiple complementary framework approach was employed in this study. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level, theory-driven implementation determinant frameworks [31]. Birken and colleagues have extensively described the similarities between the CFIR and the TDF in terms of purpose, level, degree of theoretical heritage, and operationalizability [31]. For this study, the rationale behind using two complementary frameworks is, while CFIR [32] includes five main domains: intervention characteristics (e.g., adaptability), outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), inner setting (e.g., culture), process (e.g., planning), and characteristics of individuals (e.g., self-efficacy; focuses on individual-level constructs), TDF [33, 34] provides an additional focus on individual-level behavior change factors (i.e., Capability – Knowledge, Motivation – Reinforcement, Opportunity – Social Influences). Stakeholders, especially AYA cancer survivors, are expected to focus more on individual-level factors as they are more relevant to them. Lastly, both CFIR and TDF have been applied as determinant frameworks to a variety of studies exploring barriers and facilitators of intervention adoption including identifying determinants of successful implementation of evidence-based practices in public health agencies [35] and engaging pregnant women in smoking cessation [36]. Together, these frameworks provided a multilevel perspective to understand these important factors for implementation.

Sampling and setting

A combination of convenience and snowball sampling strategy was used to select participants. Ten (n = 10) AYA cancer survivors were referred from a previous meditation mobile app study within the cancer survivorship clinic at the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. The Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey is the only NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in New Jersey, and the survivorship clinic provides long-term evaluation, support, and health education for childhood cancer survivors. The clinic is staffed with a comprehensive team of specialists including oncologists, a nurse practitioner, a psychologist, and a social worker. We also sent recruitment materials to survivors who had participated in a recently completedly meditation mobile app study and agreed to be contacted for future research opportunities. We reached out to those survivors because we were interested in learning from survivors who have experience with meditation mobile apps. Inclusion/exclusion criteria include: 1) Current age 18–29 years (to capture emerging adults who are legally responsible for their own healthcare); 2) No documented or self-reported cognitive impairment that would prevent completion of the interview; 3) English speaking; and 4) Owns a mobile phone. For clinical providers and administrators, the research team generated a preliminary list of potential stakeholders at Rutgers. Participants would also give referrals/suggestions. A total of 10 potential participants were recruited for the study. Inclusion/exclusion criteria include: 1) Fulltime employee and 2) Currently working or have worked with AYA cancer survivors in a professional capacity. All providers and administrators were employees at Rutgers in various departments, including the Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Patient Experience. Any role was eligible (e.g., physician, nurse, psychologist, social worker), with the ideal participant having clinical experience that would lend insights into structural barriers to implementing digital health interventions/meditation mobile apps in patient care. In total, N = 20 participants were recruited for the study (no refusal or dropout).

All potential participants were sent an introductory email, outlining the purpose of the study and inviting their participation. Participants who expressed interest were scheduled for an interview with GK (Postdoc; Male) and IM (Research Assistant; Female), which was conducted via Zoom. Both interviewers had an interest in digital health and had prior experience and received training in conducting interviews. All interviews took place between April and September 2022. The interviews lasted between 17 and 49 minutes with an M = 29.15 minutes (SD = 9.10).

Data collection and analysis

Perspectives of key informants were sought via semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interview guide (see Supplementary material) was adapted from previous research by Hwang and colleagues designed to understand multilevel determinants of clinicians’ decision-making on adopting imaging for prostate cancer [37]. The interview questions were open-ended to elicit implementation strategies by identifying relevant factors within the CFIR + TDF frameworks (see Theoretical approach). In addition, Wienert and Zeeb’s [38] CFIR’s construct definitions were adapted to better reflect digital health app-focused implementation factors.

The interview guide was developed using an iterative process; first, the first author (GK) compiled a list of potential interview questions based on the literature review. The questions were then paired with the CFIR + TDF frameworks; questions were modified to reflect the definitions and the goal of each construct. The senior author (KAD) and medical expert (AS; AYA oncologist) on the team then reviewed and gave feedback on the questions. The process was repeated until an agreement was achieved. The structure of the interview guide began with a list of general questions regarding mental health and supportive care in AYA cancer survivorship to assess the context for the use of digital health interventions. The CFIR + TDF questions began at the individual level and progressed toward hospital- and structural-level constructs and ended with intervention-specific questions. The sequence of the questions mirrored the multilevel structure of the CFIR framework.

Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim; de-identified transcripts were then analyzed using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. A total of three team members conducted and analyzed data. First, the transcripts were independently read and coded using content analysis [39, 40]; content analysis is frequently used by health researchers to interpret interview data [41]. The coding process itself involved interpreting and assigning interview responses into the coding schema and they would be deductively mapped onto the CFIR + TDF frameworks. The coders would then meet to discuss and reconcile any discrepancies in the mapped codes. Field notes were also used to reconcile discrepancies. Additional inductive coding was done to identify other relevant factors outside of the current frameworks, which could potentially inform future implementation strategy development.

Ethics and governance

This study received ethical approval from the Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB# Pro2021001403). Informed consent to participation was obtained from all participants. Anonymity was protected using generic descriptors throughout and redacted identifiable information when necessary.

Results

Fifty percent of the AYA survivors and 90% of the providers/administrators identified as females. While all providers were non-Hispanic Whites, 70% of the patients were non-Hispanic Whites. A variety of clinical and administration positions were recruited including n = 3 oncologists, n = 2 registered nurses, n = 3 psychosocial providers, and n = 2 others (i.e., administrator in patient experience and child life specialist). While 80% of the providers have advanced degrees, all AYA participants had either graduated or were currently enrolled in a university.

The overarching question posed to providers addressed facilitators and barriers they might encounter related to promoting digital health interventions as supportive care measures in the clinical setting (i.e., survivorship care). Survivors were asked questions regarding what factors may influence their adoption and use of mobile apps for supportive care. Table 1 presents the frequency of factors/themes that emerged for providers and patients. Patient Needs and Resources (Outer Setting), Cost (Intervention Characteristics), Evidence Strength and Quality (Intervention Characteristics), and Reinforcement (Motivation) emerged as the factors most frequently endorsed by the two groups. Several notable differences emerged. While providers reported greater importance of Available Resources (Inner Setting), Culture (Inner Setting), and Networks and Communications (Inner Setting), survivors emphasized the importance of Social Influences (Opportunities).

Table 1 Frequency of factors mentioned by providers and patients (N = 20)
Full size table

Providers

As part of the Outer Setting domain of the CFIR framework, all 10 providers discussed at length patient stressors and needs as well as the lack of easily accessible mental health resources for cancer patients and survivors (Patient Needs and Resources). For example, Provider 1 said “We’ve seen an increase in depression and anxiety related to things going on in the world complicated by the survivorship issues, particularly if there are long-term late effects that people are also coping with”, adding, “We are in a mental health provider crisis, particularly for young adults, and particularly for young adults who do not have a lot of money to pay out of pocket… Once people are in survivorship, it becomes much more difficult to access those services” (see Table 2).

Table 2 Selected themes mapped on the CFIR + TDF frameworks (N = 20)
Full size table

Cost, part of CFIR’s Intervention domain, seems to overlap some of these concerns. For example, the cost associated with mental health care was another prominent topic mentioned by all ten providers. There was a shared understanding that for a mental health app to be useful to patients, it needs to be freely available to them (e.g., Providers 6 and 8). Another intervention-related factor discussed was Evidence Strength and Quality; providers discussed the need for evidence-based research on the validity of digital health apps. Some providers expressed skepticism regarding the evidence of the intervention content, in this case, mindfulness-based intervention: “Most people don't understand it, and physicians are going to be the exact same way. They're [physicians] going to have their preconceived biases and think it's about being like some hippie in the woods” (Provider 6). Furthermore, they note the importance of making evidence-based literature available to them: “There're articles in the medical journals that are about it… send in that kind of stuff to them [physicians] from time to time reminding them that we have the [mindfulness app] study that's available. Because often patients will take what the physician says as more relevant than what other people might say” (Provider 6 about physicians). Several providers stressed the importance of utilizing a “vetted” digital health intervention: “Meditation has a lot of solid research attached to it. Now it's more acceptable. They’re really gonna have to show it's evidence-based because they do not want to be associated with [lack of evidence], which is how most of what my mind body stuff is today” (Provider 1). In general, providers are receptive to learning about new evidence; Provider 10 discussed, “I would be happy to hear about the evidence behind a meditation app if there was ‘showcasing the evidence behind mindfulness is vital in its promotion…’ to really show that [it works is to say], look, this is the data, these are the trials, this is what people have studied, this is the outcomes. Because that at the end of the day is where we make most of our decisions. It's utilizing evidence-based medicine” (Provider 5).

As part of the Inner Setting domain (CFIR), providers strongly voiced the need for a supportive leadership and company culture (Structural Characteristics and Culture), open communication among the care team (Networks and Communications), and education about the implementation of such an app (Readiness for Implementation). For example, Provider 9 praised the formal and informal communication within the department (Networks & Communication): “We meet weekly to talk about our patients to see if anybody has any concerns and it’s a good way to sort of just make sure that we’re all on the same page.” Provider 8 also highlighted the importance of communication among care team members: “Because this is such a team approach that we do that even if it's a family that I resolve everything [with]… it's still something that I'm going to share with the rest of the team so that the next time they come in that they can be involved and be a support.”

Available Resources (Inner Setting) are another key element in the care and support of survivors: “We give that passport for care, with all their instruction sheets of all the potential late effects that can happen. There are things on mental health and post-traumatic stress there. I call it their ‘encyclopedia for health…’ And just leaving the door open, knowing that they can always call the social workers or the psychologist, and if they need assistance or things aren't working or going in the way they think and they need to come talk to somebody, the doors are open here” (Provider 3). Provider 4 shared “We have a lot of resources in this cancer institute. We have a licensed social worker for counseling onsite. We have a licensed psychologist. We have access to a young adult psychiatrist where we can prescribe medications” which further highlighted the strength of resources dedicated to the implementation and ongoing care of survivors.

Further, providers noted that the promotion of the app needs to be reinforced (Reinforcement in TDF) among the care team to help staff stay aware and informed of any changes and updates. Provider 1 pointed to the advantage of mental health apps as they are easily accessible, “even if they’re [patients] not with us,” however, cautioned that these services must be provided by “people who understand the impact of cancer on survivorship” which again spoke the direct relationship with the Evidence Strength and Quality of the app (Intervention Characteristic).

Given the multitude of digital health interventions broadly, and a large number of mindfulness specific apps, one cannot assume that healthcare providers would be familiar with all available supportive care tools and the evidence related to their efficacy. Education could potentially be a crucial element in successfully implementing the broad application of mindfulness apps within the hospital system. The entire care team including physicians, nurses, psychosocial providers, and other staff should be part of educational efforts to seamlessly introduce the app and to speak with ‘one voice’ when promoting the app to cancer patients (Provider 4). Provider 6 shared: “It is important for providers that not all of them [patients] necessarily are going to use it. They’re [patients] also going to have some misconceptions about meditation and mindfulness. Giving them some of the neuroscience behind it and the brain research that is done about it and giving them more of the hard facts as opposed to oh it's really helpful.” In sum, promoting and implementing an app hospital-wide would surely require education integrated with the Process domain as outlined in the CFIR framework. This highlights providers’ goal of “…teach[ing] our patients they have to advocate for their own health with their own healthcare providers. That's what we try and do… we're trying to do is to make them independent and taking care of their own health needs” (Provider 4).

Patients

Like providers, all (n = 10) AYA survivors expressed the relevance of stressors and needs, sometimes years and decades after treatment (Patient Needs and Resources). Patient 8: “My biggest hurdle was… learning different coping mechanisms to deal with PTSD, experiencing flashbacks, dealing with hospital settings and things of that nature. I think all of that really affects you going forward and trying to get back to whatever your life will shape out to be when you’re done.” This is underscored by Patient 1 who shared that they are still “dealing with complications from late effects… even like 15 years after completed treatment because of my leukemia and side effects as a result.”

Cost is a consensus concern and survivors were cautious about their choices. Patient 7: “I think costs are the biggest one, time and for me personally depending on whether it's an app or [in]person location… I have little vision and I’m unable to drive, getting to some places is very either hard or expensive.” Free trials could be enticing and allow survivors to use the app without commitment; Patient 10 mentioned: “I feel like the best situation would be you kind of get a test trial. See what the app is like, and then go from there.” Aligned with Patient 9, survivors want to know if it does work before making any further commitment, which reflects the importance of Evidence Strength and Quality; Patient 1 suggested: “For me, it will be nice to see empirical evidence. Let's say this app out in the market is tailored just for survivors. If there is some research that let's say improves the mood of these patients or these survivors by, I don't know, about 12% or 20% versus prior to using the app, that might pique my interest a little bit more.” Patient 3 raised the rating aspect of apps: “I try to read all the comments to see how they will do. And then I would consider.”

Individual factors such as motivation are apparent. Patients emphasized the importance of Reinforcement (Motivation in TDF) in terms of app features and content. Patient 1: “It's about the app being interactive and engaging,” explaining further “having that interactive component I think is essential.” Another patient discussed the advantage of a “live” element: “I like a live chat… [where] we can really speak to another person and then meditate with them.” Another survivor: “I think it'll be really cool to have somebody else I can communicate with and meditate with” (Patient 3). Patient 4: “I think it would be helpful if there was a survivorship section not necessarily totally related to cancer. There's a lot of chronic diseases and illnesses that can go through with various degrees of daily impact on their daily lives. It doesn't necessarily have to be tailored to young adult cancer survivors. In my opinion, maybe people who have chronic medical issues or diagnoses who are young adults… It would be good to have people who have that history. As a survivor, or as a person who has a complex medical background, I think separating it by different stages of life as well would be helpful.”

Additionally, the trust survivors have in their clinicians makes them more amiable in giving mindfulness a chance (Social Influence in TDF). For example, Patient 4 noted, “I would say if my doctor and oncologist’s office suggested it and recommended it, that’s good enough for me.” Patient 8 shared: “[If the] Doctor tells me, ‘Hey, I think this would be helpful,’ I'm gonna try it.” Their trust in their clinical providers (Social Influence) offset concerns over other important factors (i.e., Evidence Strength and Quality shared by both providers and patients).

In discussing Intervention Characteristics (CFIR domain), Patient 10 expressed the advantages of digital health apps (versus going to an in-person appointment; Relative Advantage): “There’s a lot of things that you need to remember [as a cancer survivor]. It’s almost like this constant additional stressor, in addition to all of the other things that you have to do in terms of being alive. That sometimes I do feel like it’s like the straw that broke the camel’s back. So having that [an app] as an alternative avenue to kind of make sure that you’re taken care of and accounted for up to that point would probably be helpful.” AYA survivors also highlighted the need for the app to be adaptable (Adaptability), such as having reminder features (Patient 8), adjustable timeframes (Patient 7), progress tracking, and explanations that provide the logic behind mindfulness (Patient 5). Others expressed that the app should allow for opportunities to connect with others (i.e., forum options; Patient 6). Patient 3 voiced “I think it’d be really cool to have somebody else I can communicate with and meditate with them… [where] I just feel like I’m in a community with everyone who is in the same situation.” These responses elucidate the unique experiences (Patient 5) of cancer survivors. In the context of Social Influence, the ability to connect with others could improve the use of meditation apps. Patient 4 raised the opportunity for digital health interventions to also serve as a support for the broader family system: “It's a stressful time and not just for the patient themselves, but for any family member that's directly involved or a spouse. It's more than just the individual going to treatment. I think the people who are in that immediate bubble, like immediate family and members, would also benefit from that as well.”

Discussion

The goal of this study was to identify key patient-, provider- and organization-level barriers and facilitators to implementing supportive care through digital health interventions in AYA survivorship care. The findings suggest that some factors related to acceptability and adoption were both shared by providers and survivors, while others were participant-specific. Both providers and patients described Patient Needs and Resources (Outer Setting), Cost (Intervention Characteristics), and Evidence Strength and Quality (Intervention Characteristics) as priorities when it comes to factors influencing their adoption and use of mobile app interventions. These factors were also found in prior studies; for example, a recent scoping review found that 10 articles suggested Cost is a barrier to the adoption of digital health interventions [42]. In addition to the overall cost of the app [43], other expenses such as having a device [44] and paying for internet data [45, 46] could be potential barriers for patients when deciding to use digital health interventions. Although not explicitly mentioned, clinical providers have concerns over the time and effort it takes to integrate digital health interventions into practice as well as workflow [47] because these investments are often not reimbursed [48,49,50,51] which potentially speaks to the larger External Policy and Incentives (Outer Setting). For example, medical personnel (i.e., physicians and nurses) will not be reimbursed when providing psychosocial services. Thus, it is important to collaborate with the mental health team (i.e., social workers and psychologists) to support supportive care. This reflected the importance of the interdisciplinary approach in the context of the Inner Setting (CFIR): Networks and Communications, Structural Characteristics, and Culture as suggested by many providers.

The content and evidence of efficacy for psychological interventions are not always apparent to providers. For mindfulness, skepticism is well documented [52] and could be a barrier to influencing its use and adoption by both providers and patients (Evidence Strength and Quality). Our results showed that providers believed education is a crucial element in successfully implementing supportive care, especially for meditation mobile apps, given the skepticism toward mindfulness as an intervention. The interdisciplinary team including physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and staff should be a part of the educational efforts to seamlessly introduce mindfulness and other digital health interventions. Prior research has suggested implementing mindfulness training sessions for new employees or as a continuing education option offered to staff [53]. Education can demystify any uncertainty about the interventions and provide evidence and support, thus enhancing buy-in. Buy-in from providers can also instill patient confidence in the intervention. This coincides with Social Influence (TDF), where our AYA survivors expressed their trust in their providers when recommending any interventions. Provider recommendation has been found to be a strong predictor of uptakes in other interventions and preventions [54, 55]. This aligns with prior studies about the importance of the patient-physician relationship [42]. In addition, the trust patients have in their providers can perhaps overcome doubts or skepticism that patients may have about the evidence in support of the intervention (Evidence Strength and Quality). Thus, educating providers and ensuring their buy-in may have additional benefits. Similarly, educating patients about the evidence in support of mindfulness or other interventions can answer any misconceptions about the practice (Knowledge). Knowledge is an important factor as suggested by previous studies; for example, wrong perception [44,45,46, 56] and a lack of knowledge [44, 57,58,59,60] were seen as problematic to mobile health usage. However, time and effort could present as barriers due to the lack of reimbursement structure for extended patient education about supportive care by medical providers (Cost and External Policy and Incentives; [48,49,50,51]). However, it is important to note that this discussion regarding Cost and External Policy and Incentives only reflects the unique hybrid multiple-payer healthcare system in the United States. Other systems (e.g., Single-Payer and State-Based Financing) may host different structural and financial barriers to the implementation of digital innovations.

Although there were common factors shared by clinical providers and survivors, there were noticeable differences among them. In general, providers discussed structural/contextual (i.e., Inner and Outer Settings) and intervention-related (Intervention Characteristics) factors impacting adoption and workflow which in turn influences patient care. For example, providers highlighted the need to use an interdisciplinary team approach to handling patients’ psychosocial needs reflecting the importance of Culture and Networks and Communications (Inner and Outer Settings). Survivors, on the other hand, focused on intervention- and individual-related factors. In addition to aspects of the intervention adaptability and evidence of effectiveness, survivors also spoke about how Reinforcement and Knowledge may assist their adoption and sustained usage of digital innovations. It is no surprise that the groups differ in their perspective on the importance of factors related to the acceptability and adoption of digital health apps, supporting our rationale to include multiple key stakeholders in this work. Specifically, survivors were likely to focus on the individual as well as intervention factors because those are the most relevant concerns directed at their own behaviors. On the other hand, the providers’ frame of reference is based on their views on how well digital health interventions can be integrated into their workflow and meet the needs of their patients. Workflow integration demands contextual and structural compatibility (e.g., supporting clinic infrastructure [61]) which is manifested in Inner and Outer Settings.

In this study, we focused on identifying determinants of the acceptability and adoption of digital health interventions among providers and AYA in survivorship care in the United States. In addition to acceptability and adoption, there are other important implementation outcomes (e.g., appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability) [62] that should be considered in future work. Implementation processes and outcomes are dynamic, complex, and interrelated [63,64,65,66], and they often change throughout the implementation process [62]. The determinants can change based on the maturation of the implementation process (e.g., sustainability vs. early adoption).

Study limitations

Strengths of this work include using a multiple stakeholder perspective to understand factors relevant to implementing digital health interventions in AYA survivorship care and the use of a theory-driven framework [31] in design and analysis. There are also several limitations to our study. Our sample was a convenience sample with a relatively small sample size. We had a predominantly white, educated, female sample. This aligns with the literature that racial/ethnic and low SES participants [67, 68] are often underrepresented in research. Also, the AYA survivors in the study were emerging adults aged between 18 and 29 years, and therefore, our conclusion may not be relevant to older adolescents (age 15–17) who may not yet be fully responsible for their own care or independently paying for supportive care interventions such as mobile apps. All the AYA participants were also referred from a previous meditation mobile app study. Their existing experience with meditation mobile apps may not reflect the general population. However, we believe this experience could give participants better insights into how it may be incorporated into their day-to-day lives. Similarly, all the providers and staff were recruited from Rutgers which may only reflect other similar healthcare systems. Future studies should focus on enrolling participants from historically underrepresented backgrounds; strategies include: 1) Developing participant-centered recruitment strategies to identify and address barriers to participation (e.g., addressing patients’ concerns); 2) forming relationships with providers who can potentially help with enrollment; and 3) building trust and foundations for community involvement [69]. Other tangible strategies include hiring diverse staff to assist with recruitment [69] and addressing individual barriers such as transportation [70]. Lastly, although we employed a multiple-stakeholder approach, we did not include possible external influences such as health insurance companies and policymakers who have a better understanding of the Outer Setting. Future work should explore the policy-level factors with the intention of developing implementation strategies targeting factors such as Cost.

Clinical implications

Although there are limitations to the findings, we can harness results from this group to inform how we should approach addressing factors related to implementing digital health interventions. For example, the results showed that the empirical evidence in support of the intervention was important to our college-educated AYA sample. When developing or selecting mobile interventions for implementation, researchers should consider paying attention to specific characteristics of the targeted populations, such as those with higher education, and apply tailored strategies to address their concerns and needs, such as referencing empirical evidence in participant recruitment materials.

The results from this study can inform the development of implementation strategies to improve the adoption of mindfulness mobile apps and other digital health innovations in AYA survivorship care. For instance, implementation strategies may focus on education to target Knowledge and Evidence Strength and Quality. For example, we can utilize interactive group training [71], performance-related feedback [71], and opinion leaders [71] to improve knowledge, skills, and attitudes in training sessions among staff. Post-training, we can provide champions/clinical supervision [71] and make guidelines and resources pertaining to supportive care available to providers (i.e., dissemination of training materials [71]). Similarly, providers can serve as champions [71] to recommend and promote patients’ usage. In a structural approach, evidence-based apps can be incorporated into Electronic Medical Record (EMR) workflows; for example, EMR could include built-in process reminders to encourage digital health intervention adoption [71] when providers conduct mental health screenings with their patients. Digital health interventions [51] can be enhanced by working with developers to tailor mobile apps specifically to AYAs (e.g., provide cancer-tailored content, offer free trials, etc.).

Conclusions

Using mindfulness-based mobile apps as a case example, this qualitative study explored the potential barriers and facilitators of implementing digital health interventions in AYA survivorship care. Potential facilitators and barriers to digital health intervention adoption were identified that could help guide the development of implementation strategies to promote and sustain the adoption of these digital interventions. Overall, the findings suggest that while AYA survivors reported that both individual and intervention characteristics influenced their adoption or use, clinical providers were more concerned about intervention and contextual factors related to the implementation of digital health interventions in survivorship care. Future research should continue to explore policy-level factors such as insurance payors and policymakers while aiming to develop and test implementation strategies related to individual and contextual factors.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Abbreviations

AYA:

Adolescent and Young Adult

CFIR:

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

TDF:

Theoretical Domains Framework

References

  1. Bleyer A. Young adult oncology: the patients and their survival challenges. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(4):242–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Antonovsky A. Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Phillips-Salimi CR, Lommel K, Andrykowski MA. Physical and mental health status and health behaviors of childhood cancer survivors: findings from the 2009 BRFSS survey. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;58(6):964–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Phillips SM, Padgett LS, Leisenring WM, Stratton KK, Bishop K, Krull KR, et al. Survivors of childhood cancer in the United States: prevalence and burden of morbidity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24(4):653–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kamibeppu K, Sato I, Honda M, Ozono S, Sakamoto N, Iwai T, et al. Mental health among young adult survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings including posttraumatic growth. J Cancer Surviv. 2010;4(4):303–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Walker J, Hansen CH, Martin P, Symeonides S, Ramessur R, Murray G, Sharpe M. Prevalence, associations, and adequacy of treatment of major depression in patients with cancer: a cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected clinical data. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1(5):343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaul S, Avila JC, Mutambudzi M, Russell H, Kirchhoff AC, Schwartz CL. Mental distress and health care use among survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer: A cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey. Cancer. 2017;123(5):869–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kazak AE, Abrams AN, Banks J, Christofferson J, DiDonato S, Grootenhuis MA, et al. Psychosocial assessment as a standard of care in pediatric cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62(S5):S426–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cheung CK, Zebrack B. What do adolescents and young adults want from cancer resources? Insights from a Delphi panel of AYA patients. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(1):119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mohr DC, Burns MN, Schueller SM, Clarke G, Klinkman M. Behavioral intervention technologies: evidence review and recommendations for future research in mental health. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(4):332–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chandeying N, Thongseiratch T. Online Interventions to improve mental health of pediatric, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:784615.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Girault A, Ferrua M, Lalloué B, Sicotte C, Fourcade A, Yatim F, et al. Internet-based technologies to improve cancer care coordination: current use and attitudes among cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(4):551–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Raghunathan NJ, Korenstein D, Li QS, Tonorezos ES, Mao JJ. Determinants of mobile technology use and smartphone application interest in cancer patients. Cancer Med. 2018;7(11):5812–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaw JM, Sekelja N, Frasca D, Dhillon HM, Price MA. Being mindful of mindfulness interventions in cancer: a systematic review of intervention reporting and study methodology. Psychooncology. 2018;27(4):1162–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, et al. Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):357–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ott MJ, Norris RL, Bauer-Wu SM. Mindfulness meditation for oncology patients: a discussion and critical review. Integr Cancer Ther. 2006;5(2):98–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Economides M, Martman J, Bell MJ, Sanderson B. Improvements in stress, affect, and irritability following brief use of a mindfulness-based smartphone app: a randomized controlled trial. Mindfulness (N Y). 2018;9(5):1584–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Osborn J, Ajakaiye A, Cooksley T, Subbe CP. Do mHealth applications improve clinical outcomes of patients with cancer? A critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed literature. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(3):1469–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jongerius C, Russo S, Mazzocco K, Pravettoni G. Research-tested mobile apps for breast cancer care: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(2):e10930.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Leykin Y, Thekdi SM, Shumay DM, Muñoz RF, Riba M, Dunn LB. Internet interventions for improving psychological well-being in psycho-oncology: review and recommendations. Psychooncology. 2012;21(9):1016–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Spijkerman MPJ, Pots WTM, Bohlmeijer ET. Effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions in improving mental health: A review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016;45:102–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Abrol E, Groszmann M, Pitman A, Hough R, Taylor RM, Aref-Adib G. Exploring the digital technology preferences of teenagers and young adults (TYA) with cancer and survivors: a cross-sectional service evaluation questionnaire. J Cancer Surviv. 2017;11(6):670–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A’Court C, et al. Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mohr DC, Lyon AR, Lattie EG, Reddy M, Schueller SM. Accelerating digital mental health research from early design and creation to successful implementation and sustainment. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(5):e153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Graham AK, Lattie EG, Powell BJ, Lyon AR, Smith JD, Schueller SM, et al. Implementation strategies for digital mental health interventions in health care settings. Am Psychol. 2020;75(8):1080–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Fernandez ME, Ten Hoor GA, van Lieshout S, Rodriguez SA, Beidas RS, Parcel G, et al. Implementation mapping: using intervention mapping to develop implementation strategies. Front Public Health. 2019;7:158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Peters G-JY, Mullen PD, Parcel GS, Ruiter RAC, et al. A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(3):297–312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, et al. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD005470.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Presseau J, Kirk MA, Lorencatto F, Gould NJ, et al. Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Francis JJ, O’Connor D, Curran J. Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2016;11:72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Beenstock J, Sniehotta FF, White M, Bell R, Milne EM, Araujo-Soares V. What helps and hinders midwives in engaging with pregnant women about stopping smoking? A cross-sectional survey of perceived implementation difficulties among midwives in the North East of England. Implement Sci. 2012;7:36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Hwang S, Birken SA, Nielsen ME, Elston-Lafata J, Wheeler SB, Spees LP. Understanding the multilevel determinants of clinicians’ imaging decision-making: setting the stage for de-implementation of low-value imaging. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1232.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wienert J, Zeeb H. Implementing Health Apps for Digital Public Health - An Implementation Science Approach Adopting the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Front Public Health. 2021;9:610237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Neuendorf K. The content analysis guidebook. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Giebel GD, Speckemeier C, Abels C, Plescher F, Börchers K, Wasem J, et al. Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e43808.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Beer JM, Smith KN, Kennedy T, Mois G, Acena D, Gallerani DG, et al. A Focus Group Evaluation of Breathe Easier: A Mindfulness-Based mHealth App for Survivors of Lung Cancer and Their Family Members. Am J Health Promot. 2020;34(7):770–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bucci S, Berry N, Morris R, Berry K, Haddock G, Lewis S, Edge D. They Are Not Hard-to-Reach Clients. We Have Just Got Hard-to-Reach Services. Staff Views of Digital Health Tools in Specialist Mental Health Services. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:344.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Son Y-J, Oh S, Kim EY. Patients’ needs and perspectives for using mobile phone interventions to improve heart failure self-care: A qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(9):2380–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sun L, Wang Y, Greene B, Xiao Q, Jiao C, Ji M, Wu Y. Facilitators and barriers to using physical activity smartphone apps among Chinese patients with chronic diseases. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Zakerabasali S, Ayyoubzadeh SM, Baniasadi T, Yazdani A, Abhari S. Mobile Health Technology and Healthcare Providers: Systemic Barriers to Adoption. Healthc Inform Res. 2021;27(4):267–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Mohr DC, Azocar F, Bertagnolli A, Choudhury T, Chrisp P, Frank R, et al. Banbury Forum Consensus Statement on the Path Forward for Digital Mental Health Treatment. Psychiatr Serv. 2021;72(6):677–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Okorodudu DE, Bosworth HB, Corsino L. Innovative interventions to promote behavioral change in overweight or obese individuals: A review of the literature. Ann Med. 2015;47(3):179–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Thies K, Anderson D, Cramer B. Lack of Adoption of a Mobile App to Support Patient Self-Management of Diabetes and Hypertension in a Federally Qualified Health Center: Interview Analysis of Staff and Patients in a Failed Randomized Trial. JMIR Hum Factors. 2017;4(4):e24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Woods LS, Duff J, Roehrer E, Walker K, Cummings E. Patients’ Experiences of Using a Consumer mHealth App for Self-Management of Heart Failure: Mixed-Methods Study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2019;6(2):e13009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Creswell JD. Mindfulness Interventions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2017;68(1):491–516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Byron G, Ziedonis DM, McGrath C, Frazier JA, deTorrijos F, Fulwiler C. Implementation of Mindfulness Training for Mental Health Staff: Organizational Context and Stakeholder Perspectives. Mindfulness (N Y). 2015;6(4):861–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ylitalo KR, Lee H, Mehta NK. Health Care Provider Recommendation, Human Papillomavirus Vaccination, and Race/Ethnicity in the US National Immunization Survey. Am J Public Health. 2012;103(1):164–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Peterson EB, Ostroff JS, DuHamel KN, D’Agostino TA, Hernandez M, Canzona MR, Bylund CL. Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2016;93:96–105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Chung K, Kim S, Lee E, Park JY. Mobile App Use for Insomnia Self-Management in Urban Community-Dwelling Older Korean Adults: Retrospective Intervention Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(8):e17755.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Bentley CL, Powell L, Potter S, Parker J, Mountain GA, Bartlett YK, et al. The Use of a Smartphone App and an Activity Tracker to Promote Physical Activity in the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(6):e16203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Huckvale K, Adomaviciute S, Prieto JT, Leow MK-S, Car J. Smartphone apps for calculating insulin dose: a systematic assessment. BMC Medicine. 2015;13(1):106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Sobrinho A, da Silva LD, Perkusich A, Pinheiro ME, Cunha P. Design and evaluation of a mobile application to assist the self-monitoring of the chronic kidney disease in developing countries. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hardy A, Wojdecka A, West J, Matthews E, Golby C, Ward T, et al. How Inclusive, User-Centered Design Research Can Improve Psychological Therapies for Psychosis: Development of SlowMo. JMIR Ment Health. 2018;5(4):e11222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Bu S, Smith AB, Janssen A, Donnelly C, Dadich A, Mackenzie LJ, et al. Optimising implementation of telehealth in oncology: A systematic review examining barriers and enablers using the RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;180:103869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2008;299(2):211–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Repenning NP. A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation. Organ Sci. 2002;13(2):109–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hovmand PS, Gillespie DF. Implementation of evidence-based practice and organizational performance. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2010;37(1):79–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Klein KJ, Knight AP. Innovation Implementation: Overcoming the Challenge. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(5):243–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Vlooswijk C, Poll-Franse LVvd, Janssen SHM, Derksen E, Reuvers MJP, Bijlsma R, et al. Recruiting adolescent and young adult cancer survivors for patient-reported outcome research: experiences and sample characteristics of the SURVAYA study. Curr Oncol. 2022;29(8):5407–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. de Rooij BH, Ezendam NPM, Mols F, Vissers PAJ, Thong MSY, Vlooswijk CCP, et al. Cancer survivors not participating in observational patient-reported outcome studies have a lower survival compared to participants: the population-based PROFILES registry. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(12):3313–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Diaz V. Encouraging participation of minorities in research studies. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(4):372–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Rivers D, August EM, Sehovic I, Lee Green B, Quinn GP. A systematic review of the factors influencing African Americans’ participation in cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;35(2):13–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Mitali Shroff, Research Assistant, for supporting the data collection.

Funding

The study was supported by a grant from the New Jersey Commission on Cancer Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Prevention Precision Control Institute, Center for Discovery & Innovation, at Hackensack Meridian Health, Nutley, NJ, 07110, USA

    Gary Kwok

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA

    Gary Kwok, Angela Senger, Archana Sharma, Ivelisse Mandato & Katie A. Devine

Authors
  1. Gary Kwok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela Senger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Archana Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ivelisse Mandato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Katie A. Devine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IM and GK were responsible for the data collection. GK and AS analyzed and interpreted the data, and were the major contributors in writing the manuscript. KD and AS provided feedback on subsequent drafts of the manuscripts. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Kwok.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study is approved by Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB# Pro2021001403). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwok, G., Senger, A., Sharma, A. et al. Understanding the multilevel factors influencing the implementation of digital health interventions for supportive care in Adolescents and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivorship: determinants of adopting mindfulness-based mobile applications. Implement Sci Commun 5, 76 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00612-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00612-w

Keywords

Implementation Science Communications

ISSN: 2662-2211