Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27957621›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a novel technology-based intervention to support physical activity in cancer survivors.

Nancy M Gell, Kristin W Grover, Morgan Humble, Michelle Sexton, Kim Dittus

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Acceptability of the Fit2ThriveMB mHealth physical activity promotion intervention in women with metastatic breast cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nancy M GellDepartment of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, 106 Carrigan Dr., Burlington, VT, 05405, USA. nancy.gell@med.uvm.edu.
Kristin W GroverUniversity of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
Morgan HumbleDepartment of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, 106 Carrigan Dr., Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
Michelle SextonDepartment of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, 106 Carrigan Dr., Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
Kim DittusUniversity of Vermont Cancer Center, The Courtyard at Given 4th Floor North 89 Beaumont Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA.
University of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePhysical activity is known to minimize the long-term side effects of cancer treatment. Yet, rates of physical activity participation by cancer survivors are significantly lower compared to the general population. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a technology-based intervention to promote maintenance of physical activity after completing an exercise-based oncology rehabilitation program.

methodsThe pre-post 4-week intervention included support delivered through tailored text messages, Fitbit® self-monitoring, and brief health coaching sessions. The primary outcome measure was accelerometer-assessed physical activity levels. Self-efficacy, self-regulation, social support, fatigue, sleep disturbance, depression, and Fitbit® step counts were assessed as secondary outcomes.

resultsTwenty-four participants (20 females; mean age = 57.9 years ± 10.4) completed the intervention. Mean daily step counts and weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity were maintained after the intervention, as compared to baseline levels achieved at the end of 12 weeks of exercise-based oncology rehabilitation. Both self-regulation (goal setting, relapse prevention) and fatigue severity increased significantly post intervention as compared to baseline (p = 0.05 and p = 0.02, respectively). Qualitative responses demonstrated overall satisfaction with intervention components.

conclusionsResults demonstrate efficacy of the intervention for maintenance of physical activity levels achieved during exercise-based oncology rehabilitation. Low attrition and high satisfaction provide evidence for both the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention components. Exercise interventions post oncology treatment provide multiple benefits for cancer survivors, yet continued maintenance after program completion is challenging. Technological options offer low-cost, accessible modes to deliver continued monitoring and support beyond traditional facility-based programs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedExerciseExercise TherapyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsSelf EfficacySurvivorsText MessagingFitbit®Health coachPhysical activityText message

Identifiers

PMID27957621
OpenAlexW2563401342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.