ArticleJMIR cancer2024
A Theory and Evidence-Informed e-Cycling Intervention for Individuals Diagnosed With Cancer: Development Study.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysical activity engagement following a cancer diagnosis is positively associated with survival, reduced risk of disease recurrence, and reduced cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. However, rates of physical activity engagement are low among individuals diagnosed with and being treated for breast cancer or prostate cancer.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe the systematic process of developing an e-cycling intervention aimed at increasing physical activity among individuals living with prostate cancer or breast cancer and outline the key components to be implemented.
methodsThe Medical Research Council guidance for developing complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Wheel were used to guide intervention development. Information was gathered from the literature and through discussions with end users to understand factors influencing e-cycling. These factors were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify potential mechanisms of action. Behavior change techniques were selected from theory and evidence to develop intervention content. Interested parties, including cycling instructors, end users, and behavior change experts, reviewed and refined the intervention.
resultsAnticipated barriers and facilitators to e-cycling engagement were mapped onto 11 of the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. A total of 23 behavior change techniques were selected to target these domains over 4 one-to-one e-cycling sessions delivered by trained cycling instructors in the community. Cycling instructors were provided a 3-hour classroom training session on delivering the intervention and a 3-hour practical session with feedback. The outcome of this work is a theory and evidence-informed intervention aimed at promoting e-cycling behavior among individuals being treated for breast cancer or prostate cancer, which is currently being implemented and evaluated.
conclusionsTransparent intervention development and reporting of content is important for comprehensively examining intervention implementation. The implementation of this intervention package is currently being evaluated in a pilot randomized controlled trial. If the intervention is found to be effective and the content and delivery are acceptable, this intervention will form a basis for the development of e-cycling interventions in other survivors of cancer.
trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN39112034 https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN39112034; and IRSCTN Registry ISRCTN42852156; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN42852156.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.