Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Establishing physical activity in breast cancer: self-report versus activity tracker

  • Clinical trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Establishing accurate estimates of physical activity at baseline is essential for interventions assessing the potential benefits of exercise in adults with cancer. This study compares self-reported physical activity with independent data from activity trackers in women with early breast cancer (BC) recruited into a “walking” intervention during chemotherapy.

Methods

Baseline (pre-intervention) questions inquired about self-reported physical activity—number of walking days/week and minutes/day—in women who were initiating chemotherapy for Stage I–III BC. Activity trackers measured steps per day during the first full week of chemotherapy. Weighted Kappa statistic and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate agreement and association between self-reported and objectively tracked physical activity levels, respectively. Univariate analyses were conducted to identify variables that may influence congruence between the two measures.

Results

In a sample of 161 women, 77% were white, with mean age 56 years. Agreement between self-reported and objectively tracked physical activity was “fair” (kappa coefficient = 0.31), with most patients (59%) over-reporting their physical activity levels. There was weak correlation between the two measures (r = 0.24); however, correlation was strong in participants who were not married (r = 0.53) and/or living alone (r = 0.69).

Conclusions

Objective methods for assessing physical activity (activity trackers, accelerometers) should be used as a complement to self-reported measures to establish credible activity levels for intervention studies seeking to increase physical activity and/or measure the impact of increased physical activity in women with breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schmitz KH, Courneya KS, Matthews C et al (2010) American College of Sports Medicine roundtable on exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. Med Sci Sport Exerc 42:1409–1426. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e0c112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rock CL, Doyle C, Demark-Wahnefried W et al (2012) Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin 62:243–274. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang X, Li Y, Liu D (2018) Effects of exercise on the quality of life in breast cancer patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4363-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lahart IM, Metsios GS, Nevill AM, Carmichael AR (2018) Physical activity for women with breast cancer after adjuvant therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD011292. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011292.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kessels E, Husson O, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM (2018) The effect of exercise on cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 14:479–494. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S150464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Courneya KS, Segal RJ, Mackey JR et al (2007) Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 25:4396–4404. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.08.2024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Furmaniak AC, Menig M, Markes MH (2016) Exercise for women receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD005001. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005001.pub3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Dijck S, Nelissen P, Verbelen H et al (2016) The effects of physical self-management on quality of life in breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Breast 28:20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van Waart H, Stuiver MM, van Harten WH et al (2015) Effect of low-intensity physical activity and moderate- to high-intensity physical exercise during adjuvant chemotherapy on physical fitness, fatigue, and chemotherapy completion rates: results of the PACES randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 33:1918–1927. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.59.1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Loprinzi PD, Lee H, Cardinal BJ et al (2012) The relationship of actigraph accelerometer cut-points for estimating physical activity with selected health outcomes: results from NHANES 2003–2006. Res Q Exerc Sport. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (2018) National health and nutrition examination survey data

  12. Jovanovic JL, Hughes DC, Baum GP et al (2011) Accelerometry and self-report in sedentary populations. Am J Health Behav 35:71–80

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Milton K, Clemes S, Bull F (2013) Can a single question provide an accurate measure of physical activity? Br J Sports Med 47:44–48. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Herbolsheimer F, Riepe MW, Peter R (2018) Cognitive function and the agreement between self-reported and accelerometer-accessed physical activity. BMC Geriatr 18:56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0747-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Shadyab AH, Macera CA, Shaffer RA et al (2017) Associations of accelerometer-measured and self-reported sedentary time with leukocyte telomere length in older women. Am J Epidemiol 185:172–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww196

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Neil-Sztramko SE, Ghayyur A, Edwards J, Campbell KL (2017) Physical activity levels of physiotherapists across practice settings: a cross-sectional comparison using self-report questionnaire and accelerometer measures. Physiother Can 69:152–160. https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2015-64

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sievi NA, Brack T, Brutsche MH et al (2017) Accelerometer- versus questionnaire-based assessment of physical activity and their changes over time in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulm Dis 12:1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S130195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Berglind D, Willmer M, Tynelius P et al (2016) Accelerometer-measured versus self-reported physical activity levels and sedentary behavior in women before and 9 months after roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 26:1463–1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1971-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. James P, Weissman J, Wolf J et al (2016) Comparing GPS, log, survey, and accelerometry to measure physical activity. Am J Health Behav 40:123–131. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.40.1.14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Vassbakk-Brovold K, Kersten C, Fegran L et al (2016) Cancer patients participating in a lifestyle intervention during chemotherapy greatly over-report their physical activity level: a validation study. BMC Sport Sci Med Rehabil 8:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-016-0035-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nyrop KA, Deal AM, Choi SK et al (2018) Measuring and understanding adherence in a home-based exercise intervention during chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 168:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4565-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2011) Behaviorial risk factor surveillance system survey data

  23. Doyle C, Kushi LH, Byers T et al (2006) Nutrition and physical activity during and after cancer treatment: an American Cancer Society guide for informed choices. CA Cancer J Clin 56:323–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Altman DG (2006) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  25. Downs A, Van Hoomissen J, Lafrenz A, Julka DL (2014) Accelerometer-measured versus self-reported physical activity in college students: implications for research and practice. J Am Coll Health 62:204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.877018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Benitez-Porres J, Delgado M, Ruiz JR (2013) Comparison of physical activity estimates using international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ) and accelerometry in fibromyalgia patients: the Al-Andalus study. J Sports Sci 31:1741–1752. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.803594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Boyle T, Lynch BM, Courneya KS, Vallance JK (2015) Agreement between accelerometer-assessed and self-reported physical activity and sedentary time in colon cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 23:1121–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2453-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Reid RER, Insogna JA, Carver TE et al (2017) Validity and reliability of Fitbit activity monitors compared to ActiGraph GT3X+ with female adults in a free-living environment. J Sci Med Sport 20:578–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2016.10.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hochsmann C, Knaier R, Eymann J et al (2018) Validity of activity trackers, smartphones, and phone applications to measure steps in various walking conditions. Scand J Med Sci Sports 28:1818–1827. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13074

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Tucker Brenizer, Erin O’Hare, Nicole Markowski, and Amy Garrett for their efforts and commitment to the present study. We appreciate the continued support from breast oncology providers and the willingness of breast cancer patients to participate in our studies.

Funding

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (New York), Kay Yow Foundation (Raleigh NC), and UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Cancer Research Fund (Chapel Hill NC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Exercise Oncology Research Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box #8700, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Chad W. Wagoner & Jordan T. Lee

  2. Division of Hematology Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Allison M. Deal, William A. Wood, Hyman B. Muss & Kirsten A. Nyrop

  3. Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Seul K. Choi

Authors
  1. Chad W. Wagoner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seul K. Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allison M. Deal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jordan T. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. William A. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hyman B. Muss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kirsten A. Nyrop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chad W. Wagoner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wagoner, C.W., Choi, S.K., Deal, A.M. et al. Establishing physical activity in breast cancer: self-report versus activity tracker. Breast Cancer Res Treat 176, 395–400 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05263-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05263-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation