Siobhan M Phillips1, Kerry S Courneya2, Whitney A Welch3, Kara L Gavin3, Alison Cottrell3, Anne Nielsen3, Payton Solk3, Danielle Blanch-Hartigan4, David Cella5, Ronald T Ackermann6,7, Bonnie Spring3, Frank Penedo5. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. smphillips@northwestern.edu. 2. Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA. 5. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of physical activity for breast cancer survivors, the majority remain insufficiently active. Mobile health (mHealth) physical activity interventions may be a more scalable strategy to increase activity among survivors. However, little is known about their preferences for mHealth intervention features. This study explored survivors' preferences for these features. METHODS: Survivors (N = 96; Mage = 55.8 (SD = 10.2)) self-reported demographic and disease characteristics, physical activity. A subset (n = 28) completed a semi-structured phone interview. Transcribed interviews were evaluated using a thematic content analysis approach and consensus review. Following interviews, the full sample self-reported interests and preferences for intervention features via online questionnaires. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from interview data: (1) importance of relevance to breast cancer survivors; (2) easy to use; (3) integration with wearable activity trackers; (4) provide sense of accomplishment; and (5) variability in desired level of structure and personalization. The highest ranked intervention features were: daily and weekly progress feedback (87.5%), newsfeed (86.6%), activity challenges (81.3%), and scheduling tool (79.2%). Survivors were interested in receiving progress feedback (80.2%) and motivational (78.1%) and reminder (75.0%) messages. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors are interested in mHealth physical activity promotion interventions, but preferences varied around themes of relevance, ease of use, and enhancing personal motivation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Engaging survivors in developing and implementing remotely delivered mHealth activity promotion interventions may enhance their effectiveness.
PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of physical activity for breast cancer survivors, the majority remain insufficiently active. Mobile health (mHealth) physical activity interventions may be a more scalable strategy to increase activity among survivors. However, little is known about their preferences for mHealth intervention features. This study explored survivors' preferences for these features. METHODS: Survivors (N = 96; Mage = 55.8 (SD = 10.2)) self-reported demographic and disease characteristics, physical activity. A subset (n = 28) completed a semi-structured phone interview. Transcribed interviews were evaluated using a thematic content analysis approach and consensus review. Following interviews, the full sample self-reported interests and preferences for intervention features via online questionnaires. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from interview data: (1) importance of relevance to breast cancer survivors; (2) easy to use; (3) integration with wearable activity trackers; (4) provide sense of accomplishment; and (5) variability in desired level of structure and personalization. The highest ranked intervention features were: daily and weekly progress feedback (87.5%), newsfeed (86.6%), activity challenges (81.3%), and scheduling tool (79.2%). Survivors were interested in receiving progress feedback (80.2%) and motivational (78.1%) and reminder (75.0%) messages. CONCLUSIONS:Breast cancer survivors are interested in mHealth physical activity promotion interventions, but preferences varied around themes of relevance, ease of use, and enhancing personal motivation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Engaging survivors in developing and implementing remotely delivered mHealth activity promotion interventions may enhance their effectiveness.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer survivors; Exercise; Mixed methods; Physical activity; Technology; mHealth
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: Siobhan M Phillips; Catherine M Alfano; Frank M Perna; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kimberly D Miller; Rebecca L Siegel; Chun Chieh Lin; Angela B Mariotto; Joan L Kramer; Julia H Rowland; Kevin D Stein; Rick Alteri; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Kathryn E Weaver; Laura P Forsythe; Bryce B Reeve; Catherine M Alfano; Juan L Rodriguez; Susan A Sabatino; Nikki A Hawkins; Julia H Rowland Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Allison Ottenbacher; Mandi Yu; Richard P Moser; Siobhan M Phillips; Catherine Alfano; Frank M Perna Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2014-05-15
Authors: Harm L Ormel; Gabriela G F van der Schoot; Nico-Derk L Westerink; Wim J Sluiter; Jourik A Gietema; Annemiek M E Walenkamp Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Whitney A Welch; Payton Solk; Lisa Auster-Gussman; Kara L Gavin; Madelyn Whitaker; Erin Cullather; Emily Izenman; Kerry S Courneya; Ronald Ackermann; Bonnie Spring; David Cella; Frank Penedo; Siobhan M Phillips Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: Gabriel Ruiz Signorelli; Francisco Monteiro-Guerra; Octavio Rivera-Romero; Francisco J Núñez-Benjumea; Luis Fernández-Luque Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-06-22
Authors: Brooke T Nezami; Carmina G Valle; Alison K Nulty; Mark Espeland; Rena R Wing; Deborah F Tate Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Sylvia L Crowder; Katherine G Douglas; Andrew D Frugé; William R Carroll; Sharon A Spencer; Julie L Locher; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Laura Q Rogers; Anna E Arthur Journal: Nutr J Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 3.271