Literature DB >> 29692337

Acceptability and feasibility of a Fitbit physical activity monitor for endometrial cancer survivors.

Amerigo Rossi1, Laena Frechette2, Devin Miller2, Eirwen Miller2, Ciaran Friel3, Anne Van Arsdale2, Juan Lin4, Viswanathan Shankar4, Dennis Y S Kuo2, Nicole S Nevadunsky5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Endometrial cancer survivors are the least physically active of all cancer survivor groups and exhibit up to 70% obesity. While studies suggest lifestyle interventions result in improved health outcomes, recruitment and availability of these programs are limited. The purpose was to evaluate the acceptability and validity of the Fitbit Alta™ physical activity monitor (Fitbit) for socioculturally diverse endometrial cancer survivors.
METHODS: Thirty endometrial cancer survivors were given wrist-worn Fitbits to wear for 30 days. Participants then returned the Fitbits, completed the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), Technology Acceptance Questionnaire, and answered qualitative prompts. Correlations between daily Fitbit step counts, demographic factors, body mass index (BMI), and GLTEQ Index, were analyzed using Stata 13.0. Concordance Correlation Coefficient using U statistics was used to examine convergent validity.
RESULTS: Twenty-five participants completed the study. Mean age was 62 ± 9 years. Mean BMI was 32 ± 9 kg·m-2. Self-identified race/ethnicity was 36% Hispanic, 36% non-Hispanic white, 16% non-Hispanic black and 12% Asian. Participants wore the Fitbits a median of 93% of possible days. Median daily Fitbit step count was 5325 (IQR: 3761-8753). Mean Technology Acceptance score was 2.8 ± 0.5 out of 4.0. Younger (<65 years) and employed participants were more likely to achieve at least 6000 daily steps (p < 0.05). There was no correlation (CCC = 0.00, p = 0.99) between step count and GLTEQ Index. Most free responses reflected positive experiences.
CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbits were well accepted in this sample. Self-reported physical activity was not associated with steps recorded. The physical activity data indicate an insufficiently active population.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endometrial cancer; Fitbit; Obesity; Physical activity tracker; Wearable technology

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29692337     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  13 in total

1.  Self-efficacy and Physical Activity in Overweight and Obese Adults Participating in a Worksite Weight Loss Intervention: Multistate Modeling of Wearable Device Data.

Authors:  Michael C Robertson; Charles E Green; Yue Liao; Casey P Durand; Karen M Basen-Engquist
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Physical activity barriers and resources among black women with a history of breast and endometrial cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Natasha R Burse; Nishat Bhuiyan; Scherezade K Mama; Kathryn H Schmitz
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 4.442

3.  Co-Calibrating Physical and Psychological Outcomes and Consumer Wearable Activity Outcomes in Older Adults: An Evaluation of the coQoL Method.

Authors:  Vlad Manea; Katarzyna Wac
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-10-31

4.  Adherence to a lower versus higher intensity physical activity intervention in the Breast Cancer & Physical Activity Level (BC-PAL) Trial.

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

5.  High Number of Daily Steps Recorded by Runners Recovering from Bone Stress Injuries.

Authors:  Brett G Toresdahl; Joseph Nguyen; Marci A Goolsby; Mark C Drakos; Stephen Lyman
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-08-28

6.  Feasibility of Fitness Tracker Usage to Assess Activity Level and Toxicities in Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  William H Ward; Caitlin R Meeker; Elizabeth Handorf; Maureen V Hill; Margret Einarson; R Katherine Alpaugh; Thomas L Holden; Igor Astsaturov; Crystal S Denlinger; Michael J Hall; Sanjay S Reddy; Elin R Sigurdson; Efrat Dotan; Matthew Zibelman; Joshua E Meyer; Jeffrey M Farma; Namrata Vijayvergia
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2021-01

7.  Feasibility of Using Mobile Technology to Improve Physical Activity Among People Living with Diabetes in Asia.

Authors:  Nada Lukkahatai; Pratum Soivong; Dongmei Li; Phakjira Jaiman; Supornphan Thamkaew; Duenapen Chaiwong; Nutchari Hiranlalit; Jillian Inouye
Journal:  Asian Pac Isl Nurs J       Date:  2021

8.  Longitudinal assessment of post-surgical physical activity in endometrial and ovarian cancer patients.

Authors:  Jessica Gorzelitz; Erin S Costanzo; Ryan J Spencer; Meredith Rumble; Stephen L Rose; Lisa Cadmus-Bertram
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Use of Fitbit Devices in Physical Activity Intervention Studies Across the Life Course: Narrative Review.

Authors:  Ruth Gaelle St Fleur; Sara Mijares St George; Rafael Leite; Marissa Kobayashi; Yaray Agosto; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 4.773

10.  Person-Generated Health Data in Women's Health: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

Authors:  Jalisa Lynn Karim; Aline Talhouk
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2021-05-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.