Journal of Cancer Survivorship

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 80–91 | Cite as

How do different delivery schedules of tailored web-based physical activity advice for breast cancer survivors influence intervention use and efficacy?

  • CE Short
  • A Rebar
  • EL James
  • MJ Duncan
  • KS Courneya
  • RC Plotnikoff
  • R Crutzen
  • C Vandelanotte
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of differing delivery schedules of computer-tailored physical activity modules on engagement and physical activity behaviour change in a web-based intervention targeting breast cancer survivors.

Methods

Insufficiently active breast cancer survivors (n = 492) were randomly assigned to receive one of the following intervention schedules over 12 weeks: a three-module intervention delivered monthly, a three-module intervention delivered weekly or a single module intervention. Engagement with the website (number of logins, time on site, modules viewed, action plans completed) was measured using tracking software. Other outcomes (website acceptability, physical activity behaviour) were assessed using online surveys. Physical activity outcomes were analysed using regression models for both study completers and when applying intention-to-treat (using multiple imputation).

Results

Completers allocated to the monthly module group rated the intervention higher (b = 2.2 95 % CI = 0.02–4.53) on acceptability and had higher levels of resistance-training (IRR = 1.88, 95 % CI = 1.16–3.04) than those in the single module group. When accounting for missing data, these differences were no longer significant. The completion of at least two action plans was higher among those allocated to the monthly module group compared to those in the weekly module group (53 vs 40 %, p = 0.02); though the completion of at least two modules was higher in the weekly module group compared to the monthly module group (60 vs 46 %; p = 0.01). There were no other significant between group differences observed.

Conclusion

This study provides preliminary evidence that web-based computer-tailored interventions can be used to increase physical activity among breast cancer survivors. Further, there were some outcome differences based on how the tailored modules were delivered, with the most favourable outcomes observed in the monthly delivery group.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

This study will be useful for informing the design of future web-based interventions targeting breast cancer survivors.

Keywords

Physical activity eHealth Cancer Behaviour change 

Supplementary material

11764_2016_565_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Figure S1(DOCX 19 kb)
11764_2016_565_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Table S1(DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Baade PD, Fritschi L, Eakin E. Non-cancer mortality among people diagnosed with cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17:287–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eakin EG et al. Health status of long-term cancer survivors: results from an Australian population-based sample. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prevention. 2006;15(10):1969–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fossa SD, Vassilopoulou-Sellin R, Dahl AA. Long term physical sequelae after adult-onset cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2008;2(1):3–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Battaglini CL et al. Twenty-five years of research on the effects of exercise training in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of the literature. World Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2014;5(2):177–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rock, C.L., et al., Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors. CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2012: p. n/a-n/a.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmitz K et al. American College of Sports Medicine roundtable on exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(7):1409–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayes SC et al. Australian Association for Exercise and Sport Science position stand: optimising cancer outcomes through exercise. J Sci Med Sport. 2009;12(4):428–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bluethmann SM et al. Grasping the ‘teachable moment’: time since diagnosis, symptom burden and health behaviors in breast, colorectal and prostate cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology. 2015;24(10):1250–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harrison S, Hayes SC, Newman B. Level of physical activity and characteristics associated with change following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Psycho-Oncology. 2009;18(4):387–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Short C et al. A qualitative synthesis of trials promoting physical activity behaviour change among post-treatment breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7(4):570–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glasgow RE et al. The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management? Patient Educ Couns. 2001;44(2):119–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Breast cancer in Australia: an overview 2012, AIHW: Canberra.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demark-Wahnefried W et al. Practical clinical interventions for diet, physical activity, and weight control in cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(3):167–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forbes CC et al. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an online intervention to increase physical activity in Nova Scotian cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Cancer. 2015;1(2):e12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Short CE et al. Designing engaging online behaviour change interventions: a proposed model of user engagement. The European Health Psychologist. 2015;17(1):32–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lustria ML et al. A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions. J Health Commun. 2013;18(9):1039–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolfenden, L., N. Nathan, and C.M. Williams, Computer-tailored interventions to facilitate health behavioural change. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2014.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelders MS et al. Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6):e152.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kohl LF, Crutzen R, de Vries NK. Online prevention aimed at lifestyle behaviors: a systematic review of reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(7):e146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crutzen R, Ruiter RA, de Vries NK. Can interest and enjoyment help to increase use of internet-delivered interventions? Psychol Health. 2014;29(11):1227–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H. and M. Harjumaa, Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2009. 24(28):485–500.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Danaher BG, McKay HG, Seeley JR. The information architecture of behavior change websites. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2005;7(2):e12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Australian Government- Department of Health. Australia's Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines 2014 [cited 2014 18/08/14]; Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pubhlth-strateg-phys-act-guidelines.
  25. 25.
    Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education and Behavior. 2004;31(2):143–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Short CE, James E, Plotnikoff RC. Theory-and evidence-based development and process evaluation of the move more for life program: a tailored-print intervention designed to promote physical activity among post-treatment breast cancer survivors. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2013;10:124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Short, C.E., James, E.L, Girgis, A., D’Souza, M.I, Main outcomes of the Move More for Life Trial: a randomised controlled trial examining the effects of tailored-print and targeted-print materials for promoting physical activity among post-treatment breast cancer survivors, 2015, 24(7):p 771–778.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olander E et al. What are the most effective techniques in changing obese individuals' physical activity self-efficacy and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10(1):29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams S, French D. What are the most effective intervention techniques for changing physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity behaviour-and are they the same? Health Educ Res. 2011;26:308–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O'Brien HL, Toms EG. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2008;59(6):938–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crutzen, R. and G.-J.Y. Peters, Scale quality: alpha is an inadequate estimate and factor-analytic evidence is needed first of all. Health Psychology Review. 2015. doi:10.1080/17437199.2015.1124240.
  32. 32.
    Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399–412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brooke, J., SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry (1996), London: Taylore & Francis.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2008;24(6):574–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kirakowski J, Corbett M. Measuring user satisfaction. People and computers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liebreich T et al. Diabetes NetPLAY: a physical activity website and linked email counselling randomized intervention for individuals with type 2 diabetes. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6(1):18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jacobs D et al. A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports and Exerc. 1993;25(1):81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Godin G, Shepard R. Godin leisure-time exercise questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(6):36–8.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics, Household income and income distribution, Australia, 2011–2012. 2013.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yellen SB et al. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manag. 1997;13(2):63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Robinson Jr DW et al. The prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in pancreatic cancer cachexia. J Support Oncol. 2008;6(6):283–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    White IR et al. Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. Br Med J. 2011;7:342.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Buuren Sv, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2015: Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
  45. 45.
    StataCorp., Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. 2009: College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Guertler D et al. Engagement and Nonusage attrition with a free physical activity promotion program: the case of 10,000 steps Australia. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(7):e176.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Couper MP et al. Engagement and retention: measuring breadth and depth of participant use of an online intervention. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(4):e52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schulz DN et al. Program completion of a web-based tailored lifestyle intervention for adults: differences between a sequential and a simultaneous approach. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(2):e26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bélanger-Gravel A, Godin G, Amireault S. A meta-analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions on physical activity. Health Psychology Review. 2013;7(1):23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Short C et al. Efficacy of tailored-print interventions to promote physical activity: a systematic review of randomised trials. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8(1):113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vandelanotte C et al. Efficacy of sequential or simultaneous interactive computer-tailored interventions for increasing physical activity and decreasing fat intake. Ann Behav Med. 2005;29(2):138–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Short CE et al. Correlates of resistance training in post-treatment breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(10):2757–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • CE Short
    • 1
    • 2
  • A Rebar
    • 1
  • EL James
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • MJ Duncan
    • 3
    • 4
  • KS Courneya
    • 7
  • RC Plotnikoff
    • 4
  • R Crutzen
    • 8
  • C Vandelanotte
    • 1
  1. 1.Physical Activity Research Group; School of Human, Health and Social SciencesCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia
  2. 2.Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men’s Health; School of MedicineUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.School of Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  4. 4.Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and NutritionUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  5. 5.Priority Research Centre in Health BehaviourUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  6. 6.Hunter Medical Research InstituteNew Lambton HeightsAustralia
  7. 7.Faculty of Physical Education and RecreationUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  8. 8.Department of Health Promotion/CAPHRIMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations