Efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a novel technology-based intervention to support physical activity in cancer survivors
- 1.1k Downloads
Physical activity is known to minimize the long-term side effects of cancer treatment. Yet, rates of physical activity participation by cancer survivors are significantly lower compared to the general population. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a technology-based intervention to promote maintenance of physical activity after completing an exercise-based oncology rehabilitation program.
The pre-post 4-week intervention included support delivered through tailored text messages, Fitbit® self-monitoring, and brief health coaching sessions. The primary outcome measure was accelerometer-assessed physical activity levels. Self-efficacy, self-regulation, social support, fatigue, sleep disturbance, depression, and Fitbit® step counts were assessed as secondary outcomes.
Twenty-four participants (20 females; mean age = 57.9 years ± 10.4) completed the intervention. Mean daily step counts and weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity were maintained after the intervention, as compared to baseline levels achieved at the end of 12 weeks of exercise-based oncology rehabilitation. Both self-regulation (goal setting, relapse prevention) and fatigue severity increased significantly post intervention as compared to baseline (p = 0.05 and p = 0.02, respectively). Qualitative responses demonstrated overall satisfaction with intervention components.
Results demonstrate efficacy of the intervention for maintenance of physical activity levels achieved during exercise-based oncology rehabilitation. Low attrition and high satisfaction provide evidence for both the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention components. Exercise interventions post oncology treatment provide multiple benefits for cancer survivors, yet continued maintenance after program completion is challenging. Technological options offer low-cost, accessible modes to deliver continued monitoring and support beyond traditional facility-based programs.
KeywordsText message Physical activity Health coach Fitbit®
This study was supported by The University of Vermont REACH Award.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study 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.
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2004) Cancer survivorship—United States, 1971-2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 53:526–529Google Scholar
- 7.Committee PAGA, others (2008) Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report, 2008. Wash DC US Dep Health Hum Serv 2008:A1–H14Google Scholar
- 8.Buffart LM, Thong MSY, Schep G, Chinapaw MJM, Brug J, van de Poll-Franse LV (2012) Self-reported physical activity: its correlates and relationship with health-related quality of life in a large cohort of colorectal cancer survivors. PLoS One 7:e36164. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036164 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hong S (2007) Correlates of physical activity level in breast cancer survivors participating in the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 225–232Google Scholar
- 13.Loprinzi PD, Cardinal BJ, Si Q, Bennett JA, Winters-Stone KM (2012) Theory-based predictors of follow-up exercise behavior after a supervised exercise intervention in older breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 20:2511–2521. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1360-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Garrett K, Dhruva A, Koetters T, West C, Paul SM, Dunn LB, Aouizerat BE, Cooper BA, Dodd M, Lee K, Wara W, Swift P, Miaskowski C (2011) Differences in sleep disturbance and fatigue between patients with breast and prostate cancer at the initiation of radiation therapy. J Pain Symptom Manag 42:239–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Nooijen CF, Stam HJ, Sluis T, Valent L, Twisk J, van den Berg-Emons RJ (2016) A behavioral intervention promoting physical activity in people with subacute spinal cord injury: secondary effects on health, social participation and quality of life. Clin Rehabil. doi: 10.1177/0269215516657581 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Mock V (2001) Fatigue management. Cancer 92:1699–1707. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20010915)92:6+<1699::AID-CNCR1500>3.0.CO;2-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Mock V, Frangakis C, Davidson N, Ropka M, Pickett M, Poniatowski B, Stewart K, Cameron L, Zawacki K, Podewils L, Cohen G, Mccorkle R (2005) Exercise manages fatigue during breast cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology 14(6):464–477. doi: 10.1002/pon.863
- 44.Evenson KR, Wen F, Herring AH, Di C, LaMonte MJ, Tinker LF, Lee I-M, Rillamas-Sun E, LaCroix AZ, Buchner DM (2015) Calibrating physical activity intensity for hip-worn accelerometry in women age 60 to 91 years: the Women’s Health Initiative OPACH Calibration Study. Prev Med Rep 2:750–756. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.08.021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar