Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42190232›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2026

Correlates of Fitness Tracker Ownership and Use in Cancer Survivors: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Roberto M Benzo, James L Fisher, Macy K Tetrick, Rujul Singh, Alex B Osei, Jessica Krok-Schoen, Brett S Nickerson, Electra D Paskett, Ali Kargarandehkordi, Sachin Kumar and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Roberto M BenzoDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8634-6472
James L FisherArthur G. James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3211-2691
Macy K TetrickDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-2605-9614
Rujul SinghDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-8757-0658
Alex B OseiDepartment of Design, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9542-1817
Jessica Krok-SchoenThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2484-5887
Brett S NickersonThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7919-970X
Electra D PaskettDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8247-8299
Ali KargarandehkordiDepartment of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2714-9476
Sachin KumarDepartment of Integrated Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0009-0001-4400-114X
Sara M St GeorgeDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7263-4609
Michael F RayoDepartment of Computer Sciences and Engineering, College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0180-058X
Frank J PenedoSylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2780-0417
Peter WashingtonDivision of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation (DoC-IT), Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3276-4411

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsumer fitness tracker devices offer scalable opportunities to monitor real-world behavior and support health in cancer survivorship. However, adoption and sustained use outside structured research settings remain incompletely characterized, limiting their integration into survivorship care.

objectiveThe primary objectives were to describe the prevalence of fitness tracker ownership and use patterns among cancer survivors and to identify sociodemographic, psychosocial, and usability-related correlates of device ownership and frequent use.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 893 cancer survivors enrolled in the Total Cancer Care protocol at a comprehensive cancer center. Participants completed an adapted online questionnaire assessing fitness tracker ownership, frequency of use, and perceived barriers and facilitators. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify sociodemographic, psychosocial, and usability-related correlates of device ownership and frequent use.

resultsMore than half of the participants (506/893, 56.7%) reported owning a fitness tracker, and among owners, 82.2% (416/506) reported frequent use (most days or every day), including 71.3% (361/506) who wore the device every day. The most commonly used devices were the Apple iWatch (272/506, 53.8%) and Fitbit (147/506, 29.1%). In multivariable analyses, fitness tracker ownership was independently associated with sex, household income, and cancer site. Male participants had lower odds of ownership (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.87; P=.006), while higher household income was associated with greater ownership (US $50,000-$99,999: aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.13-2.57; P=.01; ≥US $100,000: aOR 3.64, 95% CI 2.41-5.50; P<.001). Ownership also differed by cancer site. Among owners, frequent use was concurrently and inversely associated with self-reported device discomfort (P<.001), low motivation (P<.001), information overload (P=.04), and limited app integration (P=.007).

conclusionsIn this single-center, predominantly White, higher-income sample of cancer survivors, fitness tracker ownership was common and patterned by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, while sustained engagement among device owners was associated with psychosocial and usability factors. These findings suggest that scalable, fitness tracker-enabled survivorship care will need to address both structural disparities in ownership as well as behavioral readiness and user experience to ensure clinically meaningful implementation.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsFitness TrackersNeoplasmsOwnershipAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesbehavior changecancer survivorshipdigital healthfitness trackerhealth equitymHealthmobile healthobservational studiesphysical activityphysical activity datasociodemographic determinantssociodemographic determinants of physical activityUnited StatesusabilityUS adult populationwearable activity monitorswearable deviceswearables

Identifiers

PMID42190232
PMCPMC13250496

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.