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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Baade PD, Fritschi L, Eakin E. Non-cancer mortality among people diagnosed with cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17:287–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Breast cancer in Australia: an overview 2012, AIHW: Canberra.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

  22. 22.

    Danaher BG, McKay HG, Seeley JR. The information architecture of behavior change websites. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2005;7(2):e12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Brooke, J., SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry (1996), London: Taylore & Francis.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Catherine Coysh for her assistance with the project and feedback on the manuscript. CES is supported by an Early Career Fellowship (ID 1090517) from the National Health and Medical Research Council. ALR is supported by an Early Career Fellowship (ID1105926) from the National Health Medical Research Council. KSC is supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program. RCP is supported by a Research Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council. CV is supported by a Future Leader Fellowship from the National Heart Foundation of Australia (ID 100427). MJD is supported by a Future Leader Fellowship (ID 100029) from the National Heart Foundation of Australia.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to CE Short.

Ethics declarations

Funding

CES is supported by an Early Career Fellowship (ID 1090517) from the National Health and Medical Research Council. ALR is supported by an Early Career Fellowship (ID1105926) from the National Health Medical Research Council. KSC is supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program. RCP is supported by a Research Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council CV is supported by a Future Leader Fellowship from the National Heart Foundation of Australia (ID 100427). MJD is supported by a Future Leader Fellowship (ID 100029) from the National Heart Foundation of Australia.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies 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.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Figure S1

(DOCX 19 kb)

Table S1

(DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Short, C., Rebar, A., James, E. et al. How do different delivery schedules of tailored web-based physical activity advice for breast cancer survivors influence intervention use and efficacy?. J Cancer Surviv 11, 80–91 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-016-0565-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Physical activity
  • eHealth
  • Cancer
  • Behaviour change