Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30596781›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Acceptability and utility of, and preference for wearable activity trackers amongst non-metropolitan cancer survivors.

Sarah J Hardcastle, Maddison Galliott, Brigid M Lynch, Nga H Nguyen, Paul A Cohen, Ganendra Raj Mohan, Niloufer J Johansen, Christobel Saunders

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Self-efficacy and Physical Activity in Overweight and Obese Adults Participating in a Worksite Weight Loss Intervention: Multistate Modeling of Wearable Device Data.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers as measuring tool and coaching device in breast and colorectal cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Sarah J HardcastleSchool of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8378-3781
Maddison GalliottSchool of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Brigid M LynchCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Nga H NguyenCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Paul A CohenSchool of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4860-9232
Ganendra Raj MohanHollywood Private Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Niloufer J JohansenHollywood Private Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Christobel SaundersSchool of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe study purpose was to investigate the acceptability and utility of, and preference for, wearable activity trackers (WATs) amongst cancer survivors living in regional and remote areas of Western Australia.

methodsTwenty participants were recruited (Mean age = 63 years, SD = 13) to test two to three trackers from five available models (Fitbit Alta, Garmin Vivofit 2, Garmin Vivosmart, Polar loop 2 and Polar A300). Participants wore each device for two weeks, followed by a one-week washout period between devices. Interviews were conducted with participants to explore user perceptions and experiences. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsFour main themes emerged: (i) Consciousness raising; (ii) Prompts and Feedback; (iii) Accuracy and registry of activities; and, (iv) WAT preferences and features.

conclusionsWATs were acceptable and useful to cancer survivors. WATs increased self-awareness of physical activity, provided real time feedback in relation to step goals, and reinforced progress and efforts towards goals. The aesthetics of the WATs were deemed crucial in determining preference and likelihood of use. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Future interventions may do well to have two different WATs available for participants to choose from, according to activity preferences, aesthetic preferences, and display size.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsFitness TrackersPerceptionAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMonitoring, Physiologic

Identifiers

PMID30596781
PMCPMC6312256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.