Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Oct 28:11:20552076251387746.
doi: 10.1177/20552076251387746. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.

Cross-sectional study on user requirements for developing a digital patient navigator app

Affiliations

Cross-sectional study on user requirements for developing a digital patient navigator app

Katharina Seitz et al. Digit Health. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess patients' preferences regarding the content and features of a digital patient navigator app. A secondary objective was to explore how patient characteristics influence the perceived importance and anticipated frequency of use of different app components.

Methods: The study was a monocentric cross-sectional survey conducted at the University Hospital Erlangen. A questionnaire consisting of 20 questions was designed to inquire about patients' preferences for a digital patient navigator. Participants had breast diseases. Descriptive analyses were conducted to identify key app features and their correlation with patient characteristics.

Results: Questionnaires from 243 patients were analyzed. Preferred key app features, in order of preference from highest to lowest, were as follows: a communication feature to chat with treating physicians, a personalized treatment plan, real-time notifications, mediation services for providing support, 3D navigation within the hospital, and personal documents. Patients' age, native language, and education significantly influenced the assessment of importance and frequency of use of some app features. A personalized treatment plan was considered more important by younger individuals (≤60 years, p < 0.001), whereas real-time notifications were considered more important by participants with a lower educational level (p = 0.003) and younger individuals (p = 0.036). Increased frequency of use of a personalized treatment plan tool was also associated with younger age (p < 0.001) and lower education levels (p = 0.025).

Conclusion: These findings suggest that a patient navigator app could be a valuable tool for a broad range of patients, potentially complementing in-person patient navigators. To ensure broad usability and acceptance, future development should account for varying needs across patient subgroups-particularly in terms of personalization, language accessibility, and communication features.

Keywords: breast cancer; digital health; mHealth; mobile apps; patient navigator.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: JE has received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, Eisai, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. CCH received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead, and MSD, as well as support for attending meetings from Daiichi Sankyo. HH received lecture fees from Novartis Pharma GmbH, LEO Pharma GmbH, Atlanta GmbH, and Lilly 403 Deutschland GmbH. PAF reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for Agendia, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seagen; invited speaker fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Seagen; and medical writing support (personal) from Roche. KS received honoraria from Gilead as well as support for attending meetings from Novartis, Gilead, and Lilly. CG received speaker honoraria from Novartis Pharma GmbH and ClinSol GmbH & Co. KG. FH has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Lilly.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Patient flowchart.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Identification of basic key tools for patient navigator app: Most important A. and most frequently B. used features analyzed on a 5-point Likert scale.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Vision of a future digital patient navigator app: App functions are based on the questionnaire analysis and are adapted to patients’ preferences. Personalized treatment plan: informations about appointments, medications and therapies; My personal documents: blood values, reports, results and saving of important questionnaires; Real-time notifications: for upcoming appointments and examinations; Mediation activities and digital information: social services, psycho-oncologists, nutritional counseling, complementary medicine, self-help groups and sports, tips and tricks for hair and make-up; 3D Guidance: informations about parking facilities, cafes and canteens; Communication: direct possibility of communication with attending physician. Created in BioRender.

References

    1. Carroll JK, et al. Patients’ experiences with navigation for cancer care. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 80: 241–247. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Freeman HP. The origin, evolution, and principles of patient navigation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21: 1614–1617. - PubMed
    1. McBrien KA, et al. Patient navigators for people with chronic disease: a systematic review. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0191980. - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Ee IB, et al. Patient navigation and activation interventions for elderly patients with cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2017; 26: e12621. - PubMed
    1. Peart A, et al. Patient navigators facilitating access to primary care: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019252. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources