Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28624949›Full record

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

Designing more engaging computer-tailored physical activity behaviour change interventions for breast cancer survivors: lessons from the iMove More for Life study.

C E Short, E L James, A L Rebar, M J Duncan, K S Courneya, R C Plotnikoff, R Crutzen, N Bidargaddi, C Vandelanotte

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors.

C E ShortSchool of Medicine, Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. Camille.Short@adelaide.edu.au.
E L JamesSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition & Priority Research Centre in Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
A L RebarSchool of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Physical Activity Research Group, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
M J DuncanSchool of Education, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Callaghan, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
K S CourneyaFaculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
R C PlotnikoffSchool of Education, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Callaghan, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
R CrutzenDepartment of Health Promotion/CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
N BidargaddiSchool of Medicine, Personal Health Informatics Group, Flinders University, Clovelly Park, Australia.
C VandelanotteSchool of Education, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Callaghan, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.

Funding

Canada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada (CA) n/aNational Health and Medical Research Council 1090517National Health and Medical Research Council (AU) 1105926National Health and Medical Research Council (AU) n/aNational Heart Foundation of Australia 100427National Heart Foundation of Australia (AU) 100029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipating in regular physical activity is a recommended cancer recovery strategy for breast cancer survivors. However, tailored support services are not widely available and most survivors are insufficiently active to obtain health benefits. Delivering tailored programs via the Internet offers one promising approach. However, recent evaluations of such programs suggest that major improvements are needed to ensure programs meet the needs of users and are delivered in an engaging way. Understanding participants' experiences with current programs can help to inform the next generation of systems. PURPOSE: The purposes of this study are to explore breast cancer survivor's perspectives of and experiences using a novel computer-tailored intervention and to describe recommendations for future iterations.

methodsQualitative data from a sub-sample of iMove More for Life study participants were analysed thematically to identify key themes. Participants long-term goals for participating in the program were explored by analysing open-ended data extracted from action plans completed during the intervention (n = 370). Participants negative and positive perceptions of the website and recommendations for improvement were explored using data extracted from open-ended survey items collected at the immediate intervention follow-up (n = 156).

resultsThe majority of participants reported multi-faceted goals, consisting of two or more outcomes they hoped to achieve within a year. While clear themes were identified (e.g. 'being satisfied with body weight'), there was considerable variability in the scope of the goal (e.g. desired weight loss ranged from 2 to 30 kg). Participants' perceptions of the website were mixed, but clear indications were provided of how intervention content and structure could be improved.

conclusionsThis study provides insight into how to better accommodate breast cancer survivors in the future and ultimately design more engaging computer-tailored interventions.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsComputersFemaleHumansInternetMiddle AgedMotor ActivityYoung AdultBreast cancer survivorComputer tailorInterventionPhysical activityQualitative

Identifiers

PMID28624949

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.