Carolyn J Peddle-McIntyre1,2, Vinicius Cavalheri3,4, Terry Boyle5,6, Joanne A McVeigh7,8, Emily Jeffery1,2, Brigid M Lynch9,10,11, Jeff K Vallance12. 1. Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth, AUSTRALIA. 2. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, AUSTRALIA. 3. School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, AUSTRALIA. 4. Institute for Respiratory Health, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, AUSTRALIA. 5. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, AUSTRALIA. 6. Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, AUSTRALIA. 7. School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work & Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, AUSTRALIA. 8. Exercise Laboratory, School of Physiology, University of Witwatersrand, SOUTH AFRICA. 9. Cancer Epidemiology and Intelligence Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA. 10. Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA. 11. Physical Activity Laboratory, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA. 12. Faculty of Health Disciplines, Athabasca University, Athabasca, CANADA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the cancer survivorship context, physical activity and sedentary behavior have been measured using different methods. PURPOSE: To conduct a narrative review of published research in cancer survivor populations to summarize the quality and identify gaps in reporting on accelerometer data collection, data processing, and outcome measures in cancer survivors. METHODS: An initial PubMed® search of articles published in English was conducted in January 2017, and a final search was conducted in May 2017. Variables extracted included study characteristics, methods for accelerometry data collection (e.g., device used), data processing (e.g., cut points used), and data reporting (e.g., time spent in different activity intensities). RESULTS: A total of 46 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. The majority of studies (34 of 46) targeted a single cancer group and 18 of these 34 studies were in survivors of breast cancer. Half (54%) of the studies used an ActiGraph® accelerometer. Methods of accelerometer data processing varied across studies. Definitions of non-wear time, vectors used during processing, and filters applied during processing were reported by 51%, 60%, and 8% of studies, respectively. Most studies reported moderate and vigorous physical activity (78%), 50% reported sedentary time, and 43% reported light-intensity activity. Cut points to categorize these activities varied between studies. CONCLUSIONS: This narrative review highlights inconsistency in the methods used to collect, process, and report accelerometry data across cancer survivor studies. Accelerometry has potential to add detailed knowledge of the levels and patterns of physical activities and sedentary behaviors across the cancer spectrum. Recommendations are made to improve data processing and reporting methods to maximize the scientific validity of future accelerometer research in this field.
BACKGROUND: In the cancer survivorship context, physical activity and sedentary behavior have been measured using different methods. PURPOSE: To conduct a narrative review of published research in cancer survivor populations to summarize the quality and identify gaps in reporting on accelerometer data collection, data processing, and outcome measures in cancer survivors. METHODS: An initial PubMed® search of articles published in English was conducted in January 2017, and a final search was conducted in May 2017. Variables extracted included study characteristics, methods for accelerometry data collection (e.g., device used), data processing (e.g., cut points used), and data reporting (e.g., time spent in different activity intensities). RESULTS: A total of 46 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. The majority of studies (34 of 46) targeted a single cancer group and 18 of these 34 studies were in survivors of breast cancer. Half (54%) of the studies used an ActiGraph® accelerometer. Methods of accelerometer data processing varied across studies. Definitions of non-wear time, vectors used during processing, and filters applied during processing were reported by 51%, 60%, and 8% of studies, respectively. Most studies reported moderate and vigorous physical activity (78%), 50% reported sedentary time, and 43% reported light-intensity activity. Cut points to categorize these activities varied between studies. CONCLUSIONS: This narrative review highlights inconsistency in the methods used to collect, process, and report accelerometry data across cancer survivor studies. Accelerometry has potential to add detailed knowledge of the levels and patterns of physical activities and sedentary behaviors across the cancer spectrum. Recommendations are made to improve data processing and reporting methods to maximize the scientific validity of future accelerometer research in this field.
Authors: Madelyn Whitaker; Whitney A Welch; Jason Fanning; Cesar A Santa-Maria; Lisa A Auster-Gussman; Payton Solk; Seema A Khan; Swati A Kulkarni; William Gradishar; Juned Siddique; Siobhan M Phillips Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Weijiao Zhou; Katelyn E Webster; Ellen Lavoie Smith; Weiyun Chen; Philip T Veliz; Rishindra M Reddy; Janet L Larson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Dong-Woo Kang; Rebekah L Wilson; Paola Gonzalo-Encabo; Mary K Norris; Marybeth Hans; Meghan Tahbaz; Jackie Dawson; Danny Nguyen; Amber J Normann; Alexandra G Yunker; Nathalie Sami; Hajime Uno; Jennifer A Ligibel; Steven D Mittelman; Christina M Dieli-Conwright Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 5.738
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
Authors: Lee Smith; Jung Ae Lee; Junbae Mun; Ratna Pakpahan; Kellie R Imm; Sonya Izadi; Adam S Kibel; Graham A Colditz; Robert L Grubb; Kathleen Y Wolin; Siobhan Sutcliffe; Lin Yang Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Suneil Jain; Gillian Prue; Malcolm Brown; Marie Murphy; Lauri McDermott; Helen McAneney; Joe M O'Sullivan Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2019-08-16
Authors: M G Sweegers; T Boyle; J K Vallance; M J Chinapaw; J Brug; N K Aaronson; A D'Silva; C S Kampshoff; B M Lynch; F Nollet; S M Phillips; M M Stuiver; H van Waart; X Wang; L M Buffart; T M Altenburg Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Tomas Vetrovsky; Cain C T Clark; Maria Cristina Bisi; Michal Siranec; Ales Linhart; James J Tufano; Michael J Duncan; Jan Belohlavek Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2020-07-03