Communication App to Manage Symptoms and Improve Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Adherence
Phase: NA
Conditions: Breast Neoplasm Female
Sponsor: Emory University

 
1 
Protocol 
 
Title: Communication App to Manage Symptoms and Improve Adjuvant 
Endocrine Therapy Adherence 
 
Protocol date: August 21, 2019 
 
Principal investigator: Ilana Graetz, PhD 
 
NCT Number: NCT03592771 
 
 

 
2 
Background 
More than 80% of U.S. women with breast cancer have hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumors (1). They are 
commonly prescribed adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) after surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation (2, 3). Long-
term use of AET significantly reduces the risk of hospitalizations, cancer recurrence, and mortality (4, 5). Despite 
the potential improvement in survival outcomes, evidence suggests that adherence is low (6-12). Multiple studies 
point to AET-related adverse symptoms as a key reason for non-adherence or premature discontinuation (7, 8, 10, 
13-20). In addition to adverse symptoms, other potentially modifiable factors that impact AET adherence include 
poorer patient-provider communication, fewer perceived treatment benefits, and barriers such as high cost and 
inconvenience (21).  
 
Patients who do not take the full amount of their AET medication as prescribed or who discontinue their AET 
treatment early do not receive the full intended treatment benefits and, consequently, are at increased risk for 
mortality (22-25). Observational studies have found significantly  lower adherence (7, 26, 27) to AET among Black 
women when compared to White women. Racial differences in AET adherence may contribute to mortality 
disparities between  Black and White women with breast cancer (6). This challenge is magnified in Memphis, 
Tennessee, which has one of the highest mortality disparities in breast cancer survival in the country (28). Survival 
differences by race persist even after controlling for stage at diagnosis, insurance status, income, and 
comorbidities (28-30). It is possible that an intervention that standardizes patient-provider communication 
regarding adherence and symptom management may be able to reduce racial disparities in AET adherence and 
improve patient health outcomes.  
 
For women with breast cancer in the adjuvant phase, clinic visits become less frequent. Because of the 
infrequency of clinic visits and limitations of patient recall, adverse symptoms are often not optimally evaluated or 
managed (13, 21). Monitoring adverse symptoms, especially between clinic visits, could help healthcare providers 
better manage AET treatments of breast cancer patients without relying on patient recall. A few studies 
investigated the feasibility of symptom monitoring among oncology patients using web portals and automated 

 
3 
telephone calls and found promising results (31-33). However, these studies focused on alleviating symptoms, not 
improving medication adherence. Despite the critically important role of AET in reducing recurrence and mortality 
among women with HR+ breast cancer (2), only seven behavioral interventions to date have been specifically 
aimed toward increasing AET adherence (34-41). Of these interventions, most provided educational materials only 
(37, 38, 41, 42) and only one showed a statistically significant improvement in adherence (36).  While there is 
some early evidence to suggests that communication between doctors and patients is associated with higher AET 
adherence, none of the AET adherence interventions focused on improving communication outside of clinic visits. 
Furthermore, there is a critical need for evidence on the impact of these types of interventions with underserved 
patients (43). 
 
In our pilot trial, which used a web-based, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated app intervention designed to 
support adherence among women initiating AET treatment, participants receiving weekly reminders to use the 
study app self-reported significantly higher AET adherence at eight weeks compared with controls (91% vs. 68%, 
p=0.02) (44). The ability of healthcare providers to monitor symptom reports via an app and engage in treatment-
related communication with patients outside of clinic visits could provide a wide-reaching and potentially cost-
effective way to improve symptom management and ultimately health outcomes. 
 
Our study tests a web-enabled app designed to improve patient-provider communication about AET adherence 
and related adverse symptoms outside of clinic visits. This builds on the success of our pilot study by: 1) expanding 
the intervention period from two to six months in order to capture later-onset adverse symptoms that might be 
slower to develop; 2) following participants for one year, to test longer-term effects of the intervention on 
medication adherence and other outcomes; and 3) including a larger sample, stratified by race, powered to test 
the intervention with and without tailored feedback messages.   
 
Methods 
THRIVE is a five-year study funded by the National Cancer Institute. During the first year, we completed five focus 

 
4 
groups to refine the study protocol and app (45). In the second year, we launched the randomized controlled trial 
of a web-based app and tailored messages for women with breast cancer initiating AET. The intervention lasts 6 
months, and the primary end point is medication adherence assessed 12-months after enrollment.  
Aims of the Study 
1. Test if the App and App+Feedback conditions improve AET adherence.  
2. Test if the App and App+Feedback conditions improve symptom burden, quality of life, patient-provider 
communication, and self-efficacy for managing symptoms.  
3. Calculate the relative impact of the App and App+Feedback conditions on healthcare utilization and cost.  
Conceptual Framework. The intervention design was guided by the Symptom Management Model, which 
describes the interrelatedness of three symptom management dimensions: symptom experience, management 
strategies, and health outcomes (46). The model assumes that the patient’s perception of symptoms is the gold-
standard of measurement, troublesome symptoms must be monitored and managed in a timely manner, and 
symptom management is dynamic (46). An effective approach to improving treatment outcomes is one that is 
sensitive to an individual’s perception of her own symptoms, relies on ongoing communication and shared 
decision-making, and is patient-centered. Accordingly, we utilize real-time reporting of symptoms between 
patients and their oncology care teams outside of clinic visits. Built-in, real-time alerts and EHR-integration allows 
any patient’s report of AET nonadherence or adverse symptoms to be continually evaluated by the patient’s West 
Cancer Center Research Instiute (WCCRI) oncology team (i.e., the participant’s physician and their nursing team). 
In turn, providers have the opportunity to promptly address symptoms and other patient concerns, resulting in 
improved patient symptom experience and AET adherence. This cyclical process provides the patient and their 
clinical team the opportunity to communicate, evaluate, and manage symptoms. 
The feedback component is based on self-regulation theory and will enhance patient engagement and activation 
and facilitate shared decision-making (47-49). Cornerstones of any behavioral program are objective feedback and 
positive reinforcement (50-52). The feedback serves to reinforce positive behavior in adherence and self-
monitoring using the app. Evidence on app-based behavioral interventions supports the importance of tailored 
feedback to maintain self-monitoring behavior and optimize outcomes (50-54).  

 
5 
 
Study Setting. Study participants will be enrolled at the WCCRI in Memphis, Tennessee. The WCCRI is the largest 
comprehensive oncology center in the tristate area of West Tennessee, Northern Mississippi, and East Arkansas, 
with a network of 14 clinic locations providing fully integrated cancer care. The WCCRI treats more than 1,200 
patients with a new breast cancer diagnosis each year.  The WCCRI serves a diverse patient population similar to 
the surrounding region: nearly 40% of patients identify as racial/ethnic minorities, the majority of whom identify 
as Black. 
 
Participants: Potentially eligible patients from all WCCRI locations are identified by our research nurse using 
WCCRI’s EHR system and by physician referral. Patients referred to the study meet with a research nurse who 
confirms eligibility, obtains informed consent, provides the electronic pillbox device, and has participants 
complete a baseline survey. Between November 2018 and March 2021, 300 participants will be recruited; 
participants complete study tasks for a minimum of a year (the primary study end-point), and up to 36 months, 
depending on how early in the trial they were enrolled. This study received approval from the University of 
Tennessee Health Science Center Institutional Review Board (IRB #: 17-05479-XP IAA).   
 
Inclusion/exclusion criteria. The criteria for entry into the study include: a) adult female WCCRI patients (ages 18 
years and older) with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ or Stage I-III hormone receptor-positive breast 
cancer; b) new prescription for an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen; c) have a mobile device with a data plan; 
d) have a valid email address; e) willing to complete brief surveys on a web-enabled device.   Given that side 
effects associated with AET are typically more severe when treatment is first initiated, we exclude patients who 
had prior AET use. Because of potential exacerbations of possible side-effect, we also exclude patients with a 
current diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis or fibromyalgia. We also exclude patients with chronic narcotic usage. 
Further, we do not include participants concurrently undergoing surgery or chemotherapy so that we could best 
disentangle the source of the side effects caused by AET alone. Our survey and app were only available in English, 

 
6 
thus we excluded participants who were unable to communicate in English. Aside from chemotherapy and 
surgery, participants are permitted to undergo radiation and receive other concomitant treatments. 
 
Procedures. Following informed consent, all participants complete a baseline survey using the REDCap (Research 
Electronic Data Capture) database assessing basic demographic information and baseline measures of key study 
outcomes (see Table 2). REDCap is a secure web-based application that has many useful features for creating and 
managing online research databases and surveys while ensuring data integrity, such as auditing trails, and secure 
data import and export functions (55).  
 
The study statistician (MK) generated the randomization sequence with SAS using race-stratified block 
randomization with equal allocation 1:1:1 with block size of six. Randomization will be implemented in the RedCap 
protocol database. Only the study statistician and the database manager have access to the randomization 
scheme.   
 
The study coordinator (AP) will randomize participants into one of the three study arms: 1) App, 2) App+Feedback, 
or 3) Usual Care. Finally, the study research nurse orients participants to their assigned condition and provides 
new enrollees with the study materials for their condition. All participants are given an electronic pill monitor (i.e., 
a WisePill device) and asked to use it for 12 months. Patients are asked to use this device exclusively with their 
prescribed AET medication. At enrollment, participants are trained on the use of the pillbox device, including refill 
instructions. If participants do not use the WisePill device for 14 consecutive days, study staff contact the 
participant via text or e-mail to troubleshoot barriers to device use. 
 
At the 12-month visit, participants are asked to return their pillbox monitors either in person or using a 
preaddressed envelope, which is mailed to them. After returning their pill monitors at the end of month 12, 
participants are given a financial incentive ($60) to compensate them for the time and effort required to use the 

 
7 
WisePill monitor. Figure 1 is a flow diagram of patient enrollment, randomization, and assessments through the 
trial. 
 
Additionally, participants are emailed a secure link and asked to complete brief follow-up surveys every six 
months for the duration of the trial.  
 
The participants randomized to the Usual Care arms are asked to use and return the WisePill box, and complete 
the surveys like the other two arms, but otherwise do not have any additional contact with the study team. 
Figure 1. Patient flow through the RCT 
 
Figure 2. Screenshot of App Adherence and Symptom Questions 

 
8 
 
App Condition. Participants in the App group 
receive a weekly text message to prompt 
them to log into the THRIVE app to answer 
questions about their AET adherence and 
related adverse symptoms. The app can be 
accessed through any web-enabled device or 
Internet browser. The reporting of 
medication use is assessed by a single-item 
adherence measure adapted from the 
Medication Adherence Reasons Scale (56, 
57). Symptoms are assessed using a condensed version of the FACT-ES (58), with follow-up questions about 
severity of symptoms using a 10-point severity scale. Figure 2 shows select screenshots of the THRIVE app’s 
symptom burden and adherence items. If participants select “Pain” as a symptom, they are prompted with a body 
map where they can indicate the specific area of the body in which they are experiencing pain (see Figure 3). The 
questions are designed to limit the time burden on patients; reports should take about one to two minutes to 
complete.  
Figure 3. Screenshot of Free Text and Body Map 

 
9 
 
During the formative phase of the study, we conducted focus groups with Black and White women with breast 
cancer to determine the optimal frequency (e.g., weekly, every other week, or monthly) and timing of messages 
and content (e.g., motivations, app use, AET adherence, symptom summary, relevant educational materials) (45). 
These focus groups served to inform our intervention design, primarily through presentation of content to 
participants and allowing them to rate and provide feedback on both quality of content, utility of certain features, 
design aesthetic, and other methodological considerations. Examples of some of these findings include 
preferences for once-a-week reminder messages; a loss aversion scheme for incentivization; and the free text, 
body map, and patient dashboard features. Although participants are prompted to use the app at least once per 
week, they are informed that they may use it at any time regardless of when they receive prompts. All patient-
reported data are automatically entered into the EHR system and easily available to oncology care teams for 
review. Furthermore, participants can use the free-text feature to convey any information they want to share with 
their provider that is not captured in the questions asked in the app (see Figure 3).  
 
The app alerts are based on response thresholds to adherence and symptom questions and are generated to 
inform the participant’s care team (i.e., prescribing physician and nurse) of any concerning responses or trends 
that emerge from the participant-reported outcomes via the app. WCCRI oncologists guided the alert thresholds, 
which include: three missed doses within the last week, a 4-point increase in symptom burden on the severity 

 
10 
scale, or a score of 7-10 on the severity scale. Participants are also able to provide a free-text response to report 
anything they would like at the end of the survey, which is reviewed by the nurse coordinator who determines if a 
response from the oncology team is required. 
 
These alerts inform providers of potentially concerning symptoms that warrant care team contact with the 
patient. The alert messages include the event that triggered the alert and are sent to the care team via e-mail. 
Care teams are asked to respond to alerts within 48 hours. They are able to review concerning responses directly 
from the patient’s EHR to help guide ongoing treatment and make therapeutic adjustments when necessary. AET 
nonadherence for three days or more within one week prompts a call, even when the cause is not related to an 
adverse symptom. This facilitates communication between patients and their teams on barriers to AET adherence 
and provides an opportunity for shared decision-making. A research nurse notes the clinical response and care 
team contact in the patient’s record after each alert (i.e., a phone consult, visit, and any medication changes).  
 
App+Feedback Condition. In addition to the previously outlined procedures, participants randomized to the 
App+Feedback group will receive weekly tailored feedback messages based on their baseline survey responses 
and use of the app during the 6-month intervention phase. Some tailored feedback includes links to symptom-
specific educational materials and coping strategies for participants who report low-severity symptoms. Using 
feedback from focus groups, we developed a library of messages with multiple options for each condition in order 
to prevent desensitization to the same message. Message categories are tailored to participant’s responses to the 
app and baseline survey.  Some feedback messages are supplemented with images (see Figure 5). 
Data Collection 
Medication Adherence Monitoring. The WisePill monitor consists of a pillbox that wirelessly transmits adherence 
data each time the device is opened. The device uses mobile phone and Internet technologies to provide real-time 
adherence data. WisePill has been used to track medication adherence for other medications used to treat various 
diseases (59, 60).  
 

 
11 
Surveys. Participants are asked to complete brief online surveys every 6 months during their participation in the 
trial. Participants who do not complete the online follow-up surveys are offered other modalities to improve 
response rates, including mailing a paper version with a self-addressed return envelope or via phone interview 
with the research nurse. We will collect the following survey measures as covariates or secondary outcomes: a) a 
brief three-question, validated instrument to assess health literacy (61); b) the Health Beliefs and Medication 
Adherence in Breast Cancer (HBMABC) (21) questionnaire, which focuses on patients’ perceived susceptibility to 
breast cancer recurrence and perceived benefits and barriers of AET; c) Self-Efficacy for Managing Symptoms- 
Short Form instrument (62); d) Communication: Patient and Physician Peer Assessment Module 10-items 
instrument (63); e) Wheeler et al.’s shared decision-making questions (64); f) sociodemographic characteristics, 
including education level, relationship status, religious identity, household size, and household income; g) Self-
reported medication adherence questions (66); and h) cost, measured via self-reported healthcare utilization (i.e., 
number of clinic visits, urgent care or emergency visits, hospitalizations, etc). Table 1 describes the key surveys 
and the relevant time points.  
Table 1. Key Survey Measures and Data Collection Timeline 
 
 
Survey Time Points 
Measure 
Description of Measure 
Baseline 
12-month 
Follow-Up  
18+ Month 
Follow-up 
Demographics 
Age, highest level of education, total household 
income, race/ethnicity, current relationship status, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, and religious 
identity will be collected at baseline 
X 
 
 
AET medication Adherence  
Self-reported medication adherence will be 
measured with 5 questions about frequence of 
adherence and main reasons.    
 
X 
X 
Symptom burden (FACT-ES) 
The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy 
Endocrine Symptoms (FACT-ES), a 18-item 
instrument evaluates endocrine symptoms on a 
five-point Likert scale [56] 
X 
X 
X 
Quality of life (SF-12) 
The Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), a 12-item 
instrument that provides summary measures of 
physical and mental health status will be used [65, 
66]  
X 
X 
X 

 
12 
Communication: Patient and 
Physician Peer Assessment Module; 
Adapted 1-item measure 
The Patient and Physician Peer Assessment Module 
[61] is an 11-item instrument that assesses patient 
perceptions of communication with their provider 
on scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Shared 
decision making will also be assessed using a 1-
item question adopted from Wheeler et al. [62] 
X 
X 
X 
Self-efficacy for managing symptoms 
(PROMIS) 
The 4-item PROMIS Item Bank v1.0 – Self-Efficacy 
for Managing Symptoms short form scale will be 
used to measure confidence in a participant’s 
ability to successfully perform specific tasks or 
behaviors related to her health in a variety of 
situations [60] 
X 
X 
X 
Healthcare utilization in previous 6-
months  
A measure developed for this study based on the 
National Health Institutes Survey (NHIS) [67] will be 
used to assess healthcare utilization throughout 
the duration of the study. 
X 
X 
X 
 
Electronic Health Record Chart Abstraction. The following baseline demographic data are abstracted from the 
patient’s electronic health record upon enrollment: 
• 
Date of birth, race/ethnicity, marital status, comorbidities 
• 
Disease stage, tumor histology and grade, hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor-2 (HER-
2) status, menopausal status 
• 
AI therapy and modalities of breast cancer treatment received in the primary adjuvant setting 
• 
Chemotherapy and/or surgery received prior to AET  
• 
Provider Responses to the alerts 
Intervention Fidelity Monitoring and Data Management. We adhere to the following quality procedures to 
ensure treatment fidelity: 1) development of detailed intervention standard operating procedures; 2) electronic 
monitoring of receipt of emails/texts, app usage, and feedback reports; 3) documentation of all intervention 
contacts; and 4) weekly meetings to review overall adherence to structured protocols, and problem solving for 
any issues related to participant challenges. The study coordinator performs weekly data quality checks, and the 
study statistician performs range checks for data values on a monthly basis. All identifiable data is stored on 
password protected servers or locked file cabinets that only the study team has access to. The study PI, the study 

 
13 
statistician, and the database manager will have access to the data. Quarterly reports will be generated from the 
accumulating data and the study team will carefully review the data for missingness and type of missingness and 
accuracy in data capture, and will develop timely action plans when necessary.  
 
If any safety adverse events are discovered, a safety protocol will be followed according to standardized 
procedures used by the West Cancer Center as standard of care under the guidance of Drs. Schwartzberg and 
Vidal. All unanticipated adverse events will be recorded in a form that includes event date, whether the event is 
treatment related, and date event was addressed. The form will be given to Dr. Graetz within 24 hours of learning 
of the event and the event documented by the appropriate staff member in progress notes, and reported to IRB, if 
appropriate. Alerts, adverse events, and referrals will not cause a participant to be dropped from the study, but 
will be considered in analysis. Any contact outside planned study contact, will be documented (time, reason, 
actions taken, initiator) on the Delivery Assessment tracking form 
 
Any changes to the protocol are communicated to the proximal study team on a weekly basis, and to the wider 
study team on a monthly basis. 
 
Study Retention. The pilot study retention rate at eight weeks was 88% without the use of financial incentives to 
compensate patients for their time and contribution to the study. This high rate may reflect the proactive 
approach that we have employed, including maintaining current contact information, minimizing barriers by 
offering multiple modalities to complete surveys, and regular study meetings with retention as a standing agenda 
item. For this study, we are following participants for a longer period, which could impact retention rates; to 
maintain high retention rates, we provide small but meaningful incentives through a loss aversion scheme, as 
recommended by participants during the formative research phase. This includes a total compensation up to $220 
in merchant credit depending on when they first enroll and how many follow-up surveys they complete. 
Specifically, for months 0-6, all participants are credited $60 merchant credit at the end of the period if they 
complete all activities, including the 6-month survey and maintenance of the WisePill device’s battery charge.  For 

 
14 
months 7-12, participants receive an additional $120 merchant credit for the second follow-up survey, WisePill 
battery charge maintenance, and return of the WisePill device. For months 18-36, participants who enroll early 
are asked to complete follow-up surveys every 6 months and receive $10 per survey, for a maximum of $40.   
Criteria for modifying allocated interventions 
If a participant is discontinued from adjuvant therapy, she is asked to still complete the follow-up surveys, but no 
longer receives reminder or feedback messages nor completes the app surveys if she was allocated to the app or 
app+feedback conditions.  
 
Statistical Analysis 
Power/Sample Size. Using adherence results from our pilot study and assuming 60% adherence in the ‘Usual Care’ 
arm, 75% adherence in the ‘App’ arm, and 85% adherence in the ‘App+Feedback’ arm, 95% power to detect a 
significance adherence difference among the three arms will be achieved with a total of 240 evaluable participants 
(80 evaluable patients in each arm) with 5% Type-1 error rate. We increase the sample size to 100 for each arm 
for a total accrual of 300 participants to account for potential 1-year attrition up to 20%. The same sample size 
would also provide 90% power with 5% Type-1 error rate to significantly detect the Quality of Life difference of 
9.3 units where the ‘App’ and ‘App+Feedback’ arms are combined against the ‘Usual Care’ arm with projected 
standard deviations from the pilot study, of 9.3 and 24.3, respectively. 
 
Primary Outcome 
 Adherence. Using the electronic pill monitoring system data, adherence will be defined as the proportion of days 
in which each participant took her medication (as recorded and transmitted via WisePill device opening) according 
to the prescribed frequency during the 12-month study period.  For example, a patient would be considered to be 
100% adherent if the pill monitoring electronic data showed that the bottle was opened on 365 days. Days during 
which patients were hospitalized will be deducted from the denominator. Persistence is commonly defined as the 
duration from AET initiation to discontinuation of the medication. Persistence will be calculated as the number of 
days from initiation until the first day of a gap that is 30 days or longer. The electronic medication monitoring 

 
15 
system will be used solely as an outcome measure to compare AET adherence among the study groups, and it will 
not be used in the app, clinic alerts, or feedback reports. 
 
Secondary Outcomes and Covariates 
Quality of life, patient-provider communication, self-efficacy for managing symptoms, and symptom burden. 
Descriptive statistics of baseline characteristics on all participants will be presented and compared among the 
three treatment groups as means and standard deviations for continuous variables, and as frequencies and 
percentages for categorical variables, for each stratum, namely, White and Black strata, and for the combined 
data across strata. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests for pairwise comparison, or its non-
parametric counterparts such as Kruskal-Walls (or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney) test when warranted, and chi-
squared or Fisher’s exact tests will be used to compare the groups for any differences in characteristics. We will 
also construct models utilizing the across-strata data to formally test for treatment and race interaction. The 
primary data analysis will adhere to the intent-to-treat principle.  
 
Healthcare utilization and costs. To ensure completeness, we will combine self-reported healthcare utilization 
(reported every 6 months) with data abstracted from patient EHRs. Duplicates will be eliminated, and if conflicting 
information arises, we will assume that the EHR is correct. All utilization will be converted to cost using Medicare 
reimbursement rates. Using Medicare payment rates is a relatively standard approach in economic analysis 
because these rates provide a common metric for costing out services across all sectors of care (public or private) 
(49); this is important because we are actually interested in the underlying resource utilization, not differences in 
prices. Medicare is also a major payer in all health care markets; almost all payers ‘follow Medicare’s lead’ when 
determining payment rates. Finally, many Medicare reimbursement rates were originally determined based on 
cost studies; thus, the Medicare relative fee structure bears some resemblance to the underlying relative cost 
structure.  
 
For analysis of healthcare utilization data, we will employ two-part Hurdle Poisson models that are appropriate for 

 
16 
‘‘rate’’ data (e.g., visits per year). If we find that the data are over-dispersed, we will also explore negative 
binomial models. These models will yield two sets of coefficients, one related to the probability of any utilization 
and the other related to the level of utilization conditional on having any utilization. For cost data, we will employ 
two-part lognormal models to accommodate the high level of skewness. Again, this approach will yield two sets of 
coefficients: one related to probability of any cost and the other related to level of cost (conditional on having any 
cost). We have successfully used this approach in previous studies. We will also use survey reports from providers 
at clinic staff to accurately estimate costs to implement and maintain each intervention. For relative cost-
effectiveness, we will calculate 6- and 12-month incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, comparing App or 
App+Feedback versus usual care at 6 and 12 months.  
 Missing data. Missing data, especially relating to the primary objective of the study, will be evaluated while the 
study is ongoing to develop corrective actions if possible. Once the study is completed, the missing data structure 
will be assessed and appropriate imputation approaches will be implemented if necessary. 
Dissemination plans 
All objectives of the study, primary and secondary, will be addressed using the final study data and the results will 
be disseminated via article publications, conference presentations, and local seminars. In addition, a summary of 
the results will be shared on ClinicalTrials.gov. We do not expect that there will be an open access to the study 
data from the public. 
 
 
 
 

 
17 
List of abbreviations 
AET: Adjuvant endocrine therapy; 
AI: Aromatase inhibitor; 
EHR: Electronic health record; 
WCCRI: West Cancer Center Research Institute 
Declarations 
Ethics approval and consent to participate 
This study protocol (version 1.17 from August 2, 2019) was approved by the University of Tennessee Health 
Science Center Institutional Review Board (IRB #: 17-05479-XP IAA).  We will obtain written informed consent 
form all study participants. 
Funding 
This study is supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (1R01CA218155).  
References 
1. 
DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Goding Sauer A, Kramer JL, Smith RA, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2015: 
Convergence of incidence rates between black and white women. CA- Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):31-42. 
2. 
Hershman DL, Shao T, Kushi LH, Buono D, Tsai WY, Fehrenbacher L, et al. Early discontinuation and non-
adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy are associated with increased mortality in women with breast cancer. 
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;126(2):529-37. 
3. 
Ruddy K, Mayer E, Partridge A. Patient adherence and persistence with oral anticancer treatment. CA-
Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(1):56-66. 
4. 
Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant 
therapy on mortality from breast cancer. New Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784-92. 
5. 
Group EBCTC. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. The Lancet. 
1998;351(9114):1451-67. 
6. 
Menashe I, Anderson WF, Jatoi I, Rosenberg PS. Underlying causes of the black-white racial disparity in 
breast cancer mortality: a population-based analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(14):993-1000. 
7. 
Murphy CC, Bartholomew LK, Carpentier MY, Bluethmann SM, Vernon SW. Adherence to adjuvant 
hormonal therapy among breast cancer survivors in clinical practice: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 
2012;134(2):459-78. 
8. 
Kimmick G, Edmond SN, Bosworth HB, Peppercorn J, Marcom PK, Blackwell K, et al. Medication taking 
behaviors among breast cancer patients on adjuvant endocrine therapy. Breast. 2015;24(5):630-6. 
9. 
Sedjo RL, Devine S. Predictors of non-adherence to aromatase inhibitors among commercially insured 
women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;125(1):191-200. 
10. 
Henry NL, Azzouz F, Desta Z, Li L, Nguyen AT, Lemler S, et al. Predictors of aromatase inhibitor 
discontinuation as a result of treatment-emergent symptoms in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 
2012;30(9):936-42. 
11. 
Barron TI, Connolly R, Bennett K, Feely J, Kennedy MJ. Early discontinuation of tamoxifen: a lesson for 
oncologists. Cancer. 2007;109(5):832-9. 

 
18 
12. 
Demissie S, Silliman RA, Lash TL. Adjuvant tamoxifen: predictors of use, side effects, and discontinuation in 
older women. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(2):322-8. 
13. 
Grunfeld EA, Hunter MS, Sikka P, Mittal S. Adherence beliefs among breast cancer patients taking 
tamoxifen. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;59(1):97-102. 
14. 
Hashem MG, Cleary K, Fishman D, Nichols L, Khalid M. Effect of concurrent prescription antiarthralgia 
pharmacotherapy on persistence to aromatase inhibitors in treatment-naive postmenopausal females. Ann 
Pharmacother. 2013;47(1):29-34. 
15. 
Kadakia KC, Snyder CF, Kidwell KM, Seewald NJ, Flockhart DA, Skaar TC, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes 
and Early Discontinuation in Aromatase Inhibitor-Treated Postmenopausal Women With Early Stage Breast 
Cancer. Oncologist. 2016;21(5):539-46. 
16. 
Kahn KL, Schneider EC, Malin JL, Adams JL, Epstein AM. Patient centered experiences in breast cancer: 
predicting long-term adherence to tamoxifen use. Med Care. 2007;45(5):431-9. 
17. 
Kirk MC, Hudis CA. Insight into barriers against optimal adherence to oral hormonal therapy in women 
with breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2008;8(2):155-61. 
18. 
Schwartzberg LS, Cobb P, Senecal F, Henry D, Kulig K, Walker MS, et al. Initial treatment and changes in 
adjuvant endocrine therapy for early stage breast cancer. Breast. 2009;18(2):78-83. 
19. 
Simon R, Latreille J, Matte C, Desjardins P, Bergeron E. Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy in 
estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients with regular follow-up. Can J Surg. 2014;57(1):26-32. 
20. 
Wigertz A, Ahlgren J, Holmqvist M, Fornander T, Adolfsson J, Lindman H, et al. Adherence and 
discontinuation of adjuvant hormonal therapy in breast cancer patients: a population-based study. Breast Cancer 
Res Treat. 2012;133(1):367-73. 
21. 
Brier MJ, Chambless DL, Gross R, Chen J, Mao JJ. Perceived barriers to treatment predict adherence to 
aromatase inhibitors among breast cancer survivors. Cancer. 2016. 
22. 
Hershman DL, Kushi LH, Shao T, Buono D, Kershenbaum A, Tsai WY, et al. Early discontinuation and 
nonadherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy in a cohort of 8,769 early-stage breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 
2010;28. 
23. 
Ruddy KJ, Partridge AH. Adherence with adjuvant hormonal therapy for breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 
2009;20. 
24. 
Ma AM, Barone J, Wallis AE, Wu NJ, Garcia LB, Estabrook A, et al. Noncompliance with adjuvant radiation, 
chemotherapy, or hormonal therapy in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):500-4. 
25. 
Makubate B, Donnan PT, Dewar JA, Thompson AM, McCowan C. Cohort study of adherence to adjuvant 
endocrine therapy, breast cancer recurrence and mortality. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(7):1515-24. 
26. 
Bickell NA, Wang JJ, Oluwole S, Schrag D, Godfrey H, Hiotis K, et al. Missed Opportunities: Racial 
Disparities in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(9):1357-62. 
27. 
Hershman DL, Tsui J, Wright JD, Coromilas EJ, Tsai WY, Neugut AI. Household Net Worth, Racial 
Disparities, and Hormonal Therapy Adherence Among Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 
2015;33(9):1053-9. 
28. 
Hunt BR, Whitman S, Hurlbert MS. Increasing Black:White disparities in breast cancer mortality in the 50 
largest cities in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol. 2014;38(2):118-23. 
29. 
Tammemagi C, Nerenz D, Neslund-Dudas C, Feldkamp C, Nathanson D. Comorbidity and survival 
disparities among black and white patients with breast cancer. JAMA. 2005;294(14):1765-72. 
30. 
Warner ET, Tamimi RM, Hughes ME, Ottesen RA, Wong YN, Edge SB, et al. Racial and Ethnic Differences in 
Breast Cancer Survival: Mediating Effect of Tumor Characteristics and Sociodemographic and Treatment Factors. J 
Clin Oncol. 2015;33(20):2254-61. 
31. 
Cleeland  CS, Gonin  R, Hatfield  AK, Edmonson  JH, Blum  RH, Stewart  JA, et al. Pain and Its Treatment in 
Outpatients with Metastatic Cancer. New Engl J Med. 1994;330(9):592-6. 
32. 
Kearney N, McCann L, Norrie J, Taylor L, Gray P, McGee-Lennon M, et al. Evaluation of a mobile phone-
based, advanced symptom management system (ASyMS©) in the management of chemotherapy-related toxicity. 
Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(4):437-44. 
33. 
Weaver A, Young A, Rowntree J, Townsend N, Pearson S, Smith J, et al. Application of mobile phone 
technology for managing chemotherapy-associated side-effects. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(11):1887-92. 

 
19 
34. 
Ell K, Vourlekis B, Xie B, Nedjat-Haiem FR, Lee PJ, Muderspach L, et al. Cancer treatment adherence among 
low-income women with breast or gynecologic cancer: a randomized controlled trial of patient navigation. Cancer. 
2009;115(19):4606-15. 
35. 
Hadji P, Blettner M, Harbeck N, Jackisch C, Lück H-J, Windemuth-Kieselbach C, et al. The Patient's 
Anastrozole Compliance to Therapy (PACT) Program: a randomized, in-practice study on the impact of a 
standardized information program on persistence and compliance to adjuvant endocrine therapy in 
postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):1505-12. 
36. 
Graetz I, McKillop CN, Stepanski E, Vidal GA, Anderson JN, Schwartzberg LS. Use of a web-based app to 
improve breast cancer symptom management and adherence for aromatase inhibitors: a randomized controlled 
feasibility trial. J Cancer Surviv. 2018. 
37. 
Heisig SR, Shedden-Mora MC, von Blanckenburg P, Schuricht F, Rief W, Albert US, et al. Informing women 
with breast cancer about endocrine therapy: effects on knowledge and adherence. Psycho-oncol. 2015;24(2):130-
7. 
38. 
Markopoulos C, Neven P, Tanner M, Marty M, Kreienberg R, Atkins L, et al. Does patient education work in 
breast cancer? Final results from the global CARIATIDE study. Future Oncol (London, England). 2015;11(2):205-17. 
39. 
Neven P, Markopoulos C, Tanner M, Marty M, Kreienberg R, Atkins L, et al. The impact of educational 
materials on compliance and persistence rates with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor treatment: First-year results 
from the Compliance of ARomatase Inhibitors AssessmenT In Daily practice through Educational approach 
(CARIATIDE) study. The Breast. 2014;23(4):393-9. 
40. 
Yu K-D, Zhou Y, Liu G-Y, Li B, He P-Q, Zhang H-W, et al. A prospective, multicenter, controlled, 
observational study to evaluate the efficacy of a patient support program in improving patients’ persistence to 
adjuvant aromatase inhibitor medication for postmenopausal, early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 
2012;134(1):307-13. 
41. 
Ziller V, Kyvernitakis I, Knoll D, Storch A, Hars O, Hadji P. Influence of a patient information program on 
adherence and persistence with an aromatase inhibitor in breast cancer treatment--the COMPAS study. BMC 
Cancer. 2013;13:407. 
42. 
Hadji P, Body JJ, Aapro MS, Brufsky A, Coleman RE, Guise T, et al. Ann Oncol: Practical guidance for the 
management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss. 2008. 
43. 
Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai GY, Gary TL, Bolen S, Gibbons MC, et al. Barriers to recruiting 
underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer. 2008;112(2):228-42. 
44. 
Graetz I, McKillop CN, Stepanski E, Vidal GA, Anderson JN, Schwartzberg LS. Use of a web-based app to 
improve breast cancer symptom management and adherence for aromatase inhibitors: a randomized controlled 
feasibility trial. J Cancer Surviv. 2018;12(4):431-40. 
45. 
Paladino AJ, Anderson JN, Graff JC, Krukowski RA, Blue R, Jones TN, et al. A qualitative exploration of race‐
based differences in social support needs of diverse women with breast cancer on adjuvant therapy. Psycho‐
oncol. 2019;28(3):570-6. 
46. 
Dodd M, Janson S, Facione N, Faucett J, Froelicher ES, Humphreys J, et al. Advancing the science of 
symptom management. J Adv Nursing. 2001;33(5):668-76. 
47. 
Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human decision 
processes. 1991;50(2):248-87. 
48. 
Leventhal H, Phillips LA, Burns E. The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): A dynamic 
framework for understanding illness self-management. J Behav Med. 2016;39(6):935-46. 
49. 
Miller SM, Shoda Y, Hurley K. Applying cognitive-social theory to health-protective behavior: breast self-
examination in cancer screening. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(1):70. 
50. 
Dijkstra A. Working mechanisms of computer-tailored health education: evidence from smoking cessation. 
Health Educ Res. 2005;20(5):527-39. 
51. 
Mulvaney SA, Ritterband LM, Bosslet L. Mobile intervention design in diabetes: review and 
recommendations. Curr Diab Rep. 2011;11(6):486-93. 
52. 
Tate DF, Jackvony EH, Wing RR. A randomized trial comparing human e-mail counseling, computer-
automated tailored counseling, and no counseling in an internet weight loss program. Arch Inern Med. 
2006;166(15):1620-5. 

 
20 
53. 
Burke LE, Wang J, Sevick MA. Self-Monitoring in Weight Loss: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Am 
Diet Assoc. 2011;111(1):92-102. 
54. 
Conroy MB, Yang K, Elci OU, Gabriel KP, Styn MA, Wang J, et al. Physical activity self-monitoring and 
weight loss: 6-month results of the SMART trial. Med Sports Sci. 2011;43(8):1568-74. 
55. 
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—
a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J 
Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-81. 
56. 
Unni EJ, Olson JL, Farris KB. Revision and validation of Medication Adherence Reasons Scale (MAR-Scale). 
Curr Med Res Opin 2014;30(2):211-21. 
57. 
Unni E, Farris KB. Determinants of different types of medication non-adherence in cholesterol lowering 
and asthma maintenance medications: a theoretical approach. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83(3):382-90. 
58. 
Fallowfield LJ, Leaity SK, Howell A, Benson S, Cella D. Assessment of quality of life in women undergoing 
hormonal therapy for breast cancer: validation of an endocrine symptom subscale for the FACT-B. Breast Cancer 
Res Treat. 1999;55(2):189-99. 
59. 
Haberer JE, Kiwanuka J, Nansera D, Muzoora C, Hunt PW, So J, et al. Real-time adherence monitoring of 
antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected adults and children in rural Uganda. AIDS (London, England). 
2013;27(13). 
60. 
Vervloet M, van Dijk L, Santen-Reestman J, van Vlijmen B, Bouvy ML, de Bakker DH. Improving medication 
adherence in diabetes type 2 patients through Real Time Medication Monitoring: a randomised controlled trial to 
evaluate the effect of monitoring patients' medication use combined with short message service (SMS) reminders. 
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):5. 
61. 
Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. 
Health. 2004;11:12. 
62. 
Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes 
Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health 
outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179-94. 
63. 
Symons AB, Swanson A, McGuigan D, Orrange S, Akl EA. A tool for self-assessment of communication skills 
and professionalism in residents. BMC Medical Education. 2009;9(1):1. 
64. 
Wheeler SB, Spencer J, Pinheiro LC, Murphy CC, Earp JA, Carey L, et al. Endocrine Therapy Nonadherence 
and Discontinuation in Black and White Women. J Natl Cancer I. 2018. 
65. 
Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM. Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of 
medication adherence. Med Care. 1986:67-74. 
66. 
Culig J, Leppée M. From Morisky to Hill-bone; self-reports scales for measuring adherence to medication. 
Collegium Antropol. 2014;38(1):55-62. 
67. 
Ware J, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. User’s manual for the SF-12v2 Health Survey. Lincoln, 
RI: QualityMetric Incorporated. 2002. 
68. 
Ware JE, Keller SD, Kosinski M. SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales: 
Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995. 
69. 
Blackwell DL, Lucas JW, Clarke TC. Summary health statistics for US adults: national health interview 
survey, 2012. Vital and health statistics Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey. 2014(260):1-161. 
70. 
Shelby RA, Dorfman CS, Bosworth HB, Keefe F, Sutton L, Owen L, et al. Testing a behavioral intervention to 
improve adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;76:120-31. 
71. 
Kimmick GG, Bosworth HB, Keefe FJ, Sutton L, Owen L, Erkanli A, et al. Testing a behavioral intervention to 
improve adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). J Clin Oncol. 2017.