Ashley B Sanders1, David E Conroy2,3, Kathryn H Schmitz4, Niraj Gusani4,5. 1. Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, 266 Recreation Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA. 2. Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, 266 Recreation Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA. conroy@psu.edu. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. conroy@psu.edu. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to characterize physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) profiles in older gastrointestinal (GI) cancer survivors, assess their interest in interventions to modify these behaviors, and evaluate the acceptability of digital tools for delivering interventions to modify these behaviors. METHODS: Survivors (M = 65 years) from an outpatient survivorship clinic at the Penn State Cancer Institute completed a questionnaire during a clinic appointment. RESULTS: Most survivors failed to attain the recommended level of PA (79%) or exceeded an average of 8 h of daily SB (42%). Access to internet and text messaging capabilities were high (70%), yet few survivors had access to smartphones or tablets (< 40%) or reported interest in using digital tools to improve PA or reduce SB (< 30%). Digital PA and SB interventions were more acceptable to younger survivors, survivors reporting more SB, and survivors engaging in more PA. The monetary value ascribed to digital health interventions did not differ as a function of mode of delivery (i.e., text messages, web, e-mail, tablet computer apps, or smartphone apps). CONCLUSIONS: Older GI cancer survivors can benefit from interventions to increase PA and decrease SB. Interest in such interventions was moderate and the acceptability of digital health tools for these interventions was limited. At the present time, behavioral interventions for older GI cancer survivors should not be delivered exclusively through digital tools and strategies to improve adoption of various technologies should be implemented when using these tools to modify PA and SB.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to characterize physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) profiles in older gastrointestinal (GI) cancer survivors, assess their interest in interventions to modify these behaviors, and evaluate the acceptability of digital tools for delivering interventions to modify these behaviors. METHODS: Survivors (M = 65 years) from an outpatient survivorship clinic at the Penn State Cancer Institute completed a questionnaire during a clinic appointment. RESULTS: Most survivors failed to attain the recommended level of PA (79%) or exceeded an average of 8 h of daily SB (42%). Access to internet and text messaging capabilities were high (70%), yet few survivors had access to smartphones or tablets (< 40%) or reported interest in using digital tools to improve PA or reduce SB (< 30%). Digital PA and SB interventions were more acceptable to younger survivors, survivors reporting more SB, and survivors engaging in more PA. The monetary value ascribed to digital health interventions did not differ as a function of mode of delivery (i.e., text messages, web, e-mail, tablet computer apps, or smartphone apps). CONCLUSIONS: Older GI cancer survivors can benefit from interventions to increase PA and decrease SB. Interest in such interventions was moderate and the acceptability of digital health tools for these interventions was limited. At the present time, behavioral interventions for older GI cancer survivors should not be delivered exclusively through digital tools and strategies to improve adoption of various technologies should be implemented when using these tools to modify PA and SB.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lifestyle; Mobile health; Needs assessment; Survivorship
Authors: Cora L Craig; Alison L Marshall; Michael Sjöström; Adrian E Bauman; Michael L Booth; Barbara E Ainsworth; Michael Pratt; Ulf Ekelund; Agneta Yngve; James F Sallis; Pekka Oja Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Shiraz I Mishra; Roberta W Scherer; Paula M Geigle; Debra R Berlanstein; Ozlem Topaloglu; Carolyn C Gotay; Claire Snyder Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-08-15
Authors: Siobhan M Phillips; Kevin W Dodd; Jeremy Steeves; James McClain; Catherine M Alfano; Edward McAuley Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Iain K Crombie; Linda Irvine; Brian Williams; Alison R McGinnis; Peter W Slane; Elizabeth M Alder; Marion E T McMurdo Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Siobhan M Phillips; Elizabeth A Awick; David E Conroy; Christine A Pellegrini; Emily L Mailey; Edward McAuley Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860