Digital illiteracy and access to remote patient monitoring in oncology: a multicentre study of healthcare providers' perceptions and patient-reported digital literacy
Abstract
Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) through electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has been shown to improve symptom management, treatment adherence, and quality of care in oncology. Despite these benefits, implementation in routine practice remains challenging due to organisational constraints, digital literacy gaps among patients and providers, and variability in institutional adoption of RPM. Vulnerable patients are among those who most benefit from such pathways but may have difficulty accessing these tools. Digital illiteracy, defined as difficulty using digital tools, is associated with age, education, and social vulnerability. Healthcare providers play a key role in initiating RPM but may hold implicit biases that influence patients' access. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare providers' perceptions and patient-reported digital literacy influence on access to RPM and patient engagement, potentially contributing to disparities in symptom monitoring in routine oncology care. Methods: We conducted a multi-component observational study across oncology centres in France and Belgium. First, a cross-sectional survey was distributed to healthcare providers to assess their confidence in digital tools and the factors influencing their RPM prescriptions. Two composite scores were developed: a Practitioner Representation Score and a Patient Capability Projection Score. Second, a prospective (September 2023 to December 2024) single-centre survey captured consultation-level decisions around RPM proposals. Third, we analysed patient-reported outcomes, through a retrospective observational cohort (June 2022 to March 2025), to evaluate adherence and symptom burden according to self-declared digital literacy. Findings: Healthcare providers (n = 103) reported high personal confidence with digital health (49.5/65), but their perception of patient digital capacity was significantly influenced by age, socioeconomic status, and geriatric vulnerability (31.0/40). In clinical practice, RPM was influenced by perceived social isolation and patient's understanding of the digital tool (3.9/5), language barriers, and smartphone ownership (3.2/5). Among patients (n = 4762), those with unfavourable digital literacy (n = 1308) had higher baseline symptom burden but demonstrated comparable adhesion (81.3% vs 85.6%; p < 0.0001) and similar symptom improvement after alerts compared to their digitally literate peers (96.4%; p = 0.99). Interpretation: Healthcare providers bias and perceived digital barriers may restrict equitable access to RPM. However, patients with low digital literacy, who often experience more severe symptoms, can engage effectively when included and may benefit most. Efforts to mitigate bias, adapt tools, and support onboarding and engagement are essential to ensure digital equity in cancer care. Funding: Breast Cancer Research and Resilience Care. Maria Alice Franzoi reports funding from IHU PRISM (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) [grant number ANR-18-IBHU-0002]; Agence Nationale de la Recherche under the Investissements Program integrated into France 2030 [WeShare grant number ANR-21-ESRE-0017] a Conquer Cancer-Breast Cancer Research Foundation Career Development Award for Diversity and Inclusion, supported by Breast Cancer Research Foundation (no grant number).
Related
- Caregivers’ and healthcare providers’ perceptions of blood availability, safety, and acceptability for patients with cancer in southwestern Uganda
- Healthcare providers’ perceptions on barriers to the provision of psychosocial cancer care at Ocean Road Cancer Institute in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
- Healthcare providers perceptions of barriers and facilitators to implementation of an acute traumatic brain injury clinical practice guideline: a CFIR-informed qualitative study at a regional referral hospital in Northern Tanzania
- Healthcare providers’ confidence, satisfaction, and perceived preparedness following a multicomponent simulation-based cardiopulmonary resuscitation training program in Gaza
- Beyond the Patient: Healthcare Providers’ Insights on Partner Engagement in Contraceptive Decision-Making
BibTeX
@article{prospero2026digital,
title = {{Digital illiteracy and access to remote patient monitoring in oncology: a multicentre study of healthcare providers' perceptions and patient-reported digital literacy}},
author = {Eléna Prospero and Alexandre Yazigi and Roman Rouzier and Maria Alice Franzoi and Jean-Matthieu l'Orphelin},
journal = {EClinicalMedicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.103866},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05845450v1},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Digital illiteracy and access to remote patient monitoring in oncology: a multicentre study of healthcare providers' perceptions and patient-reported digital literacy
AU - Eléna Prospero
AU - Alexandre Yazigi
AU - Roman Rouzier
AU - Maria Alice Franzoi
AU - Jean-Matthieu l'Orphelin
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
JO - EClinicalMedicine
DO - 10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.103866
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05845450v1
AB - Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) through electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has been shown to improve symptom management, treatment adherence, and quality of care in oncology. Despite these benefits, implementation in routine practice remains challenging due to organisational constraints, digital literacy gaps among patients and providers, and variability in institutional adoption of RPM. Vulnerable patients are among those who most benefit from such pathways but may have difficulty accessing these tools. Digital illiteracy, defined as difficulty using digital tools, is associated with age, education, and social vulnerability. Healthcare providers play a key role in initiating RPM but may hold implicit biases that influence patients' access. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare providers' perceptions and patient-reported digital literacy influence on access to RPM and patient engagement, potentially contributing to disparities in symptom monitoring in routine oncology care. Methods: We conducted a multi-component observational study across oncology centres in France and Belgium. First, a cross-sectional survey was distributed to healthcare providers to assess their confidence in digital tools and the factors influencing their RPM prescriptions. Two composite scores were developed: a Practitioner Representation Score and a Patient Capability Projection Score. Second, a prospective (September 2023 to December 2024) single-centre survey captured consultation-level decisions around RPM proposals. Third, we analysed patient-reported outcomes, through a retrospective observational cohort (June 2022 to March 2025), to evaluate adherence and symptom burden according to self-declared digital literacy. Findings: Healthcare providers (n = 103) reported high personal confidence with digital health (49.5/65), but their perception of patient digital capacity was significantly influenced by age, socioeconomic status, and geriatric vulnerability (31.0/40). In clinical practice, RPM was influenced by perceived social isolation and patient's understanding of the digital tool (3.9/5), language barriers, and smartphone ownership (3.2/5). Among patients (n = 4762), those with unfavourable digital literacy (n = 1308) had higher baseline symptom burden but demonstrated comparable adhesion (81.3% vs 85.6%; p < 0.0001) and similar symptom improvement after alerts compared to their digitally literate peers (96.4%; p = 0.99). Interpretation: Healthcare providers bias and perceived digital barriers may restrict equitable access to RPM. However, patients with low digital literacy, who often experience more severe symptoms, can engage effectively when included and may benefit most. Efforts to mitigate bias, adapt tools, and support onboarding and engagement are essential to ensure digital equity in cancer care. Funding: Breast Cancer Research and Resilience Care. Maria Alice Franzoi reports funding from IHU PRISM (Agence Nationale de la Recherche) [grant number ANR-18-IBHU-0002]; Agence Nationale de la Recherche under the Investissements Program integrated into France 2030 [WeShare grant number ANR-21-ESRE-0017] a Conquer Cancer-Breast Cancer Research Foundation Career Development Award for Diversity and Inclusion, supported by Breast Cancer Research Foundation (no grant number).
SN - 2589-5370
ER -