C E Short1, E L James2, A L Rebar3, M J Duncan4, K S Courneya5, R C Plotnikoff4, R Crutzen6, N Bidargaddi7, C Vandelanotte4. 1. School of Medicine, Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. Camille.Short@adelaide.edu.au. 2. School of Medicine and Public Health, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition & Priority Research Centre in Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia. 3. School of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Physical Activity Research Group, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia. 4. School of Education, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Callaghan, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia. 5. Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 6. Department of Health Promotion/CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 7. School of Medicine, Personal Health Informatics Group, Flinders University, Clovelly Park, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participating in regular physical activity is a recommended cancer recovery strategy for breast cancer survivors. However, tailored support services are not widely available and most survivors are insufficiently active to obtain health benefits. Delivering tailored programs via the Internet offers one promising approach. However, recent evaluations of such programs suggest that major improvements are needed to ensure programs meet the needs of users and are delivered in an engaging way. Understanding participants' experiences with current programs can help to inform the next generation of systems. PURPOSE: The purposes of this study are to explore breast cancer survivor's perspectives of and experiences using a novel computer-tailored intervention and to describe recommendations for future iterations. METHODS: Qualitative data from a sub-sample of iMove More for Life study participants were analysed thematically to identify key themes. Participants long-term goals for participating in the program were explored by analysing open-ended data extracted from action plans completed during the intervention (n = 370). Participants negative and positive perceptions of the website and recommendations for improvement were explored using data extracted from open-ended survey items collected at the immediate intervention follow-up (n = 156). RESULTS: The majority of participants reported multi-faceted goals, consisting of two or more outcomes they hoped to achieve within a year. While clear themes were identified (e.g. 'being satisfied with body weight'), there was considerable variability in the scope of the goal (e.g. desired weight loss ranged from 2 to 30 kg). Participants' perceptions of the website were mixed, but clear indications were provided of how intervention content and structure could be improved. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how to better accommodate breast cancer survivors in the future and ultimately design more engaging computer-tailored interventions.
BACKGROUND: Participating in regular physical activity is a recommended cancer recovery strategy for breast cancer survivors. However, tailored support services are not widely available and most survivors are insufficiently active to obtain health benefits. Delivering tailored programs via the Internet offers one promising approach. However, recent evaluations of such programs suggest that major improvements are needed to ensure programs meet the needs of users and are delivered in an engaging way. Understanding participants' experiences with current programs can help to inform the next generation of systems. PURPOSE: The purposes of this study are to explore breast cancer survivor's perspectives of and experiences using a novel computer-tailored intervention and to describe recommendations for future iterations. METHODS: Qualitative data from a sub-sample of iMove More for Life study participants were analysed thematically to identify key themes. Participants long-term goals for participating in the program were explored by analysing open-ended data extracted from action plans completed during the intervention (n = 370). Participants negative and positive perceptions of the website and recommendations for improvement were explored using data extracted from open-ended survey items collected at the immediate intervention follow-up (n = 156). RESULTS: The majority of participants reported multi-faceted goals, consisting of two or more outcomes they hoped to achieve within a year. While clear themes were identified (e.g. 'being satisfied with body weight'), there was considerable variability in the scope of the goal (e.g. desired weight loss ranged from 2 to 30 kg). Participants' perceptions of the website were mixed, but clear indications were provided of how intervention content and structure could be improved. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how to better accommodate breast cancer survivors in the future and ultimately design more engaging computer-tailored interventions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer survivor; Computer tailor; Intervention; Physical activity; Qualitative
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: K De Cocker; C Charlier; E Van Hoof; E Pauwels; L Lechner; J Bourgois; H Spittaels; C Vandelanotte; I De Bourdeaudhuij Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Daniel Y T Fong; Judy W C Ho; Bryant P H Hui; Antoinette M Lee; Duncan J Macfarlane; Sharron S K Leung; Ester Cerin; Wynnie Y Y Chan; Ivy P F Leung; Sharon H S Lam; Aliki J Taylor; Kar-keung Cheng Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-01-30
Authors: Emily C Martin; Karen Basen-Engquist; Matthew G Cox; Elizabeth J Lyons; Cindy L Carmack; Janice A Blalock; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2016-02-11
Authors: Camille E Short; Ann DeSmet; Catherine Woods; Susan L Williams; Carol Maher; Anouk Middelweerd; Andre Matthias Müller; Petra A Wark; Corneel Vandelanotte; Louise Poppe; Melanie D Hingle; Rik Crutzen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Holly E L Evans; Daniel A Galvão; Cynthia C Forbes; Danielle Girard; Corneel Vandelanotte; Robert U Newton; Andrew D Vincent; Gary Wittert; Ganessan Kichenadasse; Suzanne Chambers; Nicholas Brook; Camille E Short Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Amy Finlay; Holly Evans; Andrew Vincent; Gary Wittert; Corneel Vandelanotte; Camille E Short Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 3.390