Nga H Nguyen1, Nyssa T Hadgraft2,3, Melissa M Moore4, Dori E Rosenberg5,6, Chris Lynch7, Marina M Reeves8, Brigid M Lynch9,10,11. 1. Cancer Epidemiology and Intelligence Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 2. Physical Activity Laboratory, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, St Vincent's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. School of Public Health, The University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 8. School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 9. Cancer Epidemiology and Intelligence Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Brigid.Lynch@cancervic.org.au. 10. Physical Activity Laboratory, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Brigid.Lynch@cancervic.org.au. 11. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Brigid.Lynch@cancervic.org.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are common amongst breast cancer survivors. These behaviours are associated with an increased risk of comorbidities such as heart disease, diabetes and other cancers. Commercially available, wearable activity trackers (WATs) have potential utility as behavioural interventions to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour within this population. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to explore the acceptability and usability of consumer WAT amongst postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. METHODS:Fourteen participants tested two to three randomly assigned trackers from six available models (Fitbit One, Jawbone Up 24, Garmin Vivofit 2, Garmin Vivosmart, Garmin Vivoactive and Polar A300). Participants wore each device for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week washout period before wearing the next device. Four focus groups employing a semi-structured interview guide explored user perceptions and experiences. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyse focus group transcripts. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from our data: (1) trackers' increased self-awareness and motivation, (2) breast cancer survivors' confidence and comfort with wearable technology, (3) preferred and disliked features of WAT, (4) concerns related to the disease and (5) peer support and doctor monitoring were possible strategies for WAT application. CONCLUSIONS: WATs are perceived as useful and acceptable interventions by postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. Effective WAT interventions may benefit from taking advantage of the simple features of the trackers paired with other behavioural change techniques, such as specialist counselling, doctor monitoring and peer support, along with simple manual instructions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are common amongst breast cancer survivors. These behaviours are associated with an increased risk of comorbidities such as heart disease, diabetes and other cancers. Commercially available, wearable activity trackers (WATs) have potential utility as behavioural interventions to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour within this population. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to explore the acceptability and usability of consumer WAT amongst postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Fourteen participants tested two to three randomly assigned trackers from six available models (Fitbit One, Jawbone Up 24, Garmin Vivofit 2, Garmin Vivosmart, Garmin Vivoactive and Polar A300). Participants wore each device for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week washout period before wearing the next device. Four focus groups employing a semi-structured interview guide explored user perceptions and experiences. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyse focus group transcripts. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from our data: (1) trackers' increased self-awareness and motivation, (2) breast cancer survivors' confidence and comfort with wearable technology, (3) preferred and disliked features of WAT, (4) concerns related to the disease and (5) peer support and doctor monitoring were possible strategies for WAT application. CONCLUSIONS: WATs are perceived as useful and acceptable interventions by postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. Effective WAT interventions may benefit from taking advantage of the simple features of the trackers paired with other behavioural change techniques, such as specialist counselling, doctor monitoring and peer support, along with simple manual instructions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Cancer survivors; Physical activity; Sedentary behaviour; Wearable technology
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Stephanie M George; Steven C Moore; Heather R Bowles; Aaron Blair; Yikyung Park; Richard P Troiano; Albert Hollenbeck; Arthur Schatzkin Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 7.045
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: Theresa Crowgey; Katherine B Peters; Whitney E Hornsby; Amy Lane; Frances McSherry; James E Herndon; Miranda J West; Christina L Williams; Lee W Jones Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Lisa A Cadmus-Bertram; Bess H Marcus; Ruth E Patterson; Barbara A Parker; Brittany L Morey Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Shirley M Bluethmann; Sally W Vernon; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Caitlin C Murphy; L Kay Bartholomew Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-01-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anne M Nielsen; Whitney A Welch; Kara L Gavin; Alison M Cottrell; Payton Solk; Emily A Torre; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Siobhan M Phillips Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Siobhan M Phillips; Kerry S Courneya; Whitney A Welch; Kara L Gavin; Alison Cottrell; Anne Nielsen; Payton Solk; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; David Cella; Ronald T Ackermann; Bonnie Spring; Frank Penedo Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Gillian R Lloyd; Sara A Hoffman; Whitney A Welch; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Kara L Gavin; Alison Cottrell; Lisa Cadmus-Bertram; Bonnie Spring; Frank Penedo; Kerry S Courneya; Siobhan M Phillips Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Jessica McNeil; Mina Fahim; Chelsea R Stone; Rachel O'Reilly; Kerry S Courneya; Christine M Friedenreich Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 4.442