C E Short1,2, A Rebar3, E L James4,5,6,7, M J Duncan4,5, K S Courneya8, R C Plotnikoff5, R Crutzen9, C Vandelanotte3. 1. Physical Activity Research Group; School of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia. Camille.Short@adelaide.edu.au. 2. Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health; School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Camille.Short@adelaide.edu.au. 3. Physical Activity Research Group; School of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia. 4. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. 5. Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. 6. Priority Research Centre in Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. 7. Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia. 8. Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 9. Department of Health Promotion/CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Cheryl L Rock; Colleen Doyle; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Kerry S Courneya; Anna L Schwartz; Elisa V Bandera; Kathryn K Hamilton; Barbara Grant; Marji McCullough; Tim Byers; Ted Gansler Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Camille E Short; Erica L James; Afaf Girgis; Mario I D'Souza; Ronald C Plotnikoff Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Ciarán Haberlin; Tom O'Dwyer; David Mockler; Jonathan Moran; Dearbhaile M O'Donnell; Julie Broderick Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: C E Short; E L James; A L Rebar; M J Duncan; K S Courneya; R C Plotnikoff; R Crutzen; N Bidargaddi; C Vandelanotte Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hanna van Waart; Laurien M Buffart; Martijn M Stuiver; Wim H van Harten; Gabe S Sonke; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Karen L Syrjala; Marie-Laure Crouch; Wendy M Leisenring; Mary E D Flowers; Samantha B Artherholt; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Eleni Romano; Joan M Romano; Paul J Martin; Jean C Yi Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Celien Van der Mispel; Louise Poppe; Geert Crombez; Maïté Verloigne; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Victoria A Williams; Nashira I Brown; Roman Johnson; M Cole Ainsworth; David Farrell; Margaux Barnes; Suzanne Perumean-Chaney; Kevin Fontaine; Michelle Y Martin; Dori Pekmezi; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Rebecca R Turner; Liz Steed; Helen Quirk; Rosa U Greasley; John M Saxton; Stephanie Jc Taylor; Derek J Rosario; Mohamed A Thaha; Liam Bourke Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-09-19
Authors: Anna L Roberts; Abigail Fisher; Lee Smith; Malgorzata Heinrich; Henry W W Potts Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 4.442