Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 168, Issue 1, pp 43–55 | Cite as

Measuring and understanding adherence in a home-based exercise intervention during chemotherapy for early breast cancer

  • K. A. Nyrop
  • A. M. Deal
  • S. K. Choi
  • C. W. Wagoner
  • J. T. Lee
  • A. Wood
  • C. Anders
  • L. A. Carey
  • E. C. Dees
  • T. A. Jolly
  • K. E. Reeder-Hayes
  • H. B. Muss
Clinical trial

Abstract

Purpose

Ensuring and measuring adherence to prescribed exercise regimens are fundamental challenges in intervention studies to promote exercise in adults with cancer. This study reports exercise adherence in women who were asked to walk 150 min/week throughout chemotherapy treatment for early breast cancer. Participants were asked to wear a FitbitTM throughout their waking hours, and Fitbit steps were uploaded directly into study computers.

Methods

Descriptive statistics are reported, and both unadjusted and multivariable linear regression models were used to assess associations between participant characteristics, breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, chemotherapy toxicities, and patient-reported symptoms with average Fitbit steps/week.

Results

Of 127 women consented to the study, 100 had analyzable Fitbit data (79%); mean age was 48 and 31% were non-white. Mean walking steps were 3956 per day. Nineteen percent were fully adherent with the target of 6686 steps/day and an additional 24% were moderately adherent. In unadjusted analysis, baseline variables associated with fewer Fitbit steps were: non-white race (p = 0.012), high school education or less (p = 0.0005), higher body mass index (p = 0.0024), and never/almost never drinking alcohol (p = 0.0048). Physical activity variables associated with greater Fitbit steps were: pre-chemotherapy history of vigorous physical activity (p = 0.0091) and higher self-reported walking minutes/week (p < 0.001), and higher outcome expectations from exercise (p = 0.014). Higher baseline anxiety (p = 0.03) and higher number of chemotherapy-related symptoms rates “severe/very severe” (p = 0.012) were associated with fewer steps. In multivariable analysis, white race was associated with 12,146 greater Fitbit steps per week (p = 0.004), as was self-reported walking minutes prior to start of chemotherapy (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Inexpensive commercial-grade activity trackers, with data uploaded directly into research computers, enable objective monitoring of home-based exercise interventions in adults diagnosed with cancer. Analysis of the association of walking steps with participant characteristics at baseline and toxicities during chemotherapy can identify reasons for low/non-adherence with prescribed exercise regimens.

Keywords

Exercise Chemotherapy Breast cancer Intervention adherence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Cancer Research Fund. We thank Nora Christopher, Emily Bell, Tucker Brenizer, Will Pulley, and Nicole Markowski for recruitment, data collection, and data management. We greatly appreciate the active support from breast oncology providers and, most importantly, the willingness of breast cancer patients to participate in our study.

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen SS, Matthews CE, Bradshaw PT et al (2013) Sedentary behavior, physical activity, and likelihood of breast cancer among Black and White women: a report from the Southern Community Cohort Study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 6(6):566–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou Y, Zhao H, Peng C (2015) Association of sedentary behavior with the risk of breast cancer in women: update meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Epidemiol 25(9):687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Demark-Wahnefried W, Hars V, Conaway MR et al (1997) Reduced rates of metabolism and decreased physical activity in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Clin Nutr 65(5):1495–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kwan ML, Sternfeld B, Ergas IJ et al (2012) Change in physical activity during active treatment in a prospective study of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131(2):679–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mustian KM, Griggs JJ, Morrow GR, McTiernan A, Roscoe JA et al (2006) Exercise and side effects among 749 patients during and after treatment for cancer: a University of Rochester Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program study. Support Care Cancer 14(7):732–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rock CL, Doyle C, Demark-Wahnefried W et al (2012) Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin 62(4):243–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doyle C, Kushi LH, Byers T, Courneya KS et al (2006) Nutrition and physical activity during and after cancer treatment: an American Cancer Society guide for informed choices. CA Cancer J Clin 56:323–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lahart IM, Metsios GS, Nevill AM, Carmichael AR (2014) Physical activity levels in women attending breast screening, receiving chemotherapy and post-breast cancer treatment; a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(5):5487–5496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnsson A, Johnsson A, Johansson K (2013) Physical activity during and after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Physiotherapy 99(3):221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mishra SI, Scherer RW, Snyder C, Geigle PM, Berlanstein DR, Topaloglu O (2012) Exercise interventions on health-related quality of life for people with cancer during active treatment. Cochrane database system review.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mishra SI, Scherer RW, Geigle PM, et al. (2012) Exercise interventions on health-related quality of life for cancer survivors. Cochrane database system reviewGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furmaniak AC, Menig M, Markes MH (2016) Exercise for women receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Cochrane database system review, vol 9. p Cd005001Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bussmann JB, Tulen JH, van Herel EC, Stam HJ (1998) Quantification of physical activities by means of ambulatory accelerometry: a validation study. Psychophysiology 35(5):488–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schrack JA, Gresham G, Wanigatunga AA (2017) Understanding physical activity in cancer patients and survivors: new methodology, new challenges, and new opportunities. Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studiesGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gell NM, Grover KW, Humble M, Sexton M, Dittus K (2017) Efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a novel technology-based intervention to support physical activity in cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 25(4):1291–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD (2015) Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12:159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferguson T, Rowlands AV, Olds T, Maher C (2015) The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12:42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paul SS, Tiedemann A, Hassett LM et al (2015) Validity of the Fitbit activity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 1(1):e000013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cadmus-Bertram LA, Marcus BH, Patterson RE, Parker BA, Morey BL (2015) Randomized trial of a fitbit-based physical activity intervention for women. Am J Prev Med 49(3):414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Swenson KK, Nissen MJ, Henly SJ (2010) Physical activity in women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer: adherence to a walking intervention. Oncol Nurs Forum 37(3):321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foundation Arthritis (2010) Walk with ease: your guide to walking for better health, improved fitness and less pain (third edition). Arthritis Foundation, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park CH, Elavsky S, Koo KM (2014) Factors influencing physical activity in older adults. J Exerc Rehabil 10(1):45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marcus BH, Selby VC, Niaura RS, Rossi JS (1992) Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behavior change. Res Q Exerc Sport 63(1):60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Resnick B, Zimmerman SI, Orwig D, Furstenberg AL, Magaziner J (2000) Outcome expectations for exercise scale: utility and psychometrics. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 55(6):S352–S356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Husebo AM, Karlsen B, Allan H, Soreide JA, Bru E (2015) Factors perceived to influence exercise adherence in women with breast cancer participating in an exercise programme during adjuvant chemotherapy: a focus group study. J Clin Nurs 24(3–4):500–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tudor-Locke C, Bassett DR, Jr (2004) How many steps/day are enough? Preliminary pedometer indices for public health. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). 34(1):1–8Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vallance JK, Friedenreich CM, Lavallee CM et al (2016) Exploring the feasibility of a broad-reach physical activity behavior change intervention for women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer: a randomized trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark 25(2):391–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cadmus LA, Salovey P, Yu H, Chung G, Kasl S, Irwin ML (2009) Exercise and quality of life during and after treatment for breast cancer: results of two randomized controlled trials. Psycho-Oncol 182009:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogers LQ, Hopkins-Price P, Vicari S, Pamenter R, Courneya KS et al (2009) A randomized controlled trial to increase physical activity in breast cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41(4):935–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tudor-Locke C, Craig CL, Brown WJ et al (2011) How many steps/day are enough? For adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) BRFSS questionnaire. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH (1949) The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM (ed) Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 191–205Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Podsiadlo D, Richardson S (1991) The timed “Up & Go”: a test of functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991(39):142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guralnik L, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF et al (1994) A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol Med Sci. 49(2):M85–M94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, Bonomi AE, Tulsky DS et al (1997) Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast (FACT-B) quality of life instrument. J Clin Oncol 15:974–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Webster K, Cella D, Yost K (2003) The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) Measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kelly MJ, Dunstan FD, Lloyd K, Fone DL (2008) Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the CGQ-12: a comparison of five different methods. BMC Psychiatry 8(10):1–9Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stewart AL, Kamberg CJ (1991) Physical Functioning Measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr (eds) Measuring functioning and well-being: the medical outcomes survey. Duke University Press, Durham and LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fillenbaum GG, Smyer MA (1981) The development, validity, and reliability of the OARS multidimensional functional assessment questionnaire. J Gerontol 36(4):428–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL (1991) The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med 32(6):705–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sherbourne CD (1991) Social functioning: social activity limitations measure. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds) Measuring functioning and well-being: the medical outcomes study. Duke University Press, Durham and London, pp 173–181Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Resnick B, Zimmerman S, Orwig D, Furstenberg AL, Magaziner J (2001) Model testing for reliability and validity of the outcome expectations for exercise scale. Nurs Res 50(5):293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hoffman AJ, Von Eye A, Gift AG, Given BA, Given CW, Rothert M (2011) The development and testing of an instrument for perceived self-efficacy for fatigue self-management. Cancer Nurs 34(3):167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Dueck AC et al (2014) Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(7):dju129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA et al (2014) Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst 106(9):244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA et al (2015) Validity and reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncol 1(8):1051–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Backman M, Wengström Y, Johansson B et al (2014) A randomized pilot study with daily walking during adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with breast and colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol 53(4):510–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gokal K, Wallis D, Ahmed S, Boiangiu I, Kancherla K, Munir F (2016) Effects of a self-managed home-based walking intervention on psychosocial health outcomes for breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a randomised controlled trial. Support Care Cancer 24(3):1139–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moller T, Lillelund C, Andersen C et al (2015) The challenge of preserving cardiorespiratory fitness in physically inactive patients with colon or breast cancer during adjuvant chemotherapy: a randomised feasibility study. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 1(1):e000021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brunet J, Taran S, Burke S, Sabiston CM (2013) A qualitative exploration of barriers and motivators to physical activity participation in women treated for breast cancer. Disabil Rehabil 35:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Henriksson A, Arving C, Johansson B, Igelstrom H, Nordin K (2016) Perceived barriers to and facilitators of being physically active during adjuvant cancer treatment. Patient Educ Couns 99(7):1220–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Husebo AM, Dyrstad SM, Soreide JA, Bru E (2013) Predicting exercise adherence in cancer patients and survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of motivational and behavioural factors. J Clin Nurs 22(1–2):4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Backman M, Browall M, Sundberg CJ, Wengstrom Y (2016) Experiencing health—physical activity during adjuvant chemotherapy treatment for women with breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs 21:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pickett M, Mock V, Ropka ME, Cameron L et al (2002) Adherence to moderate-intensity exercise during breast cancer therapy. Cancer Pract 10(6):284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nguyen NH, Hadgraft NT, Moore MM, et al. (2017) A qualitative evaluation of breast cancer survivors’ acceptance of and preferences for consumer wearable technology activity trackers. Support Care CancerGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gabrys L, Sperzel S, Bernhoerster M, Banzer W, Vogt L (2017) Real-time visual activity feedback for physical activity improvement in breast and colon cancer patients. Res Sports Med (Print) 25(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ferriolli E, Skipworth RJ, Hendry P et al (2012) Physical activity monitoring: a responsive and meaningful patient-centered outcome for surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy? J Pain Symptom Manage 43(6):1025–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bennett AV, Reeve BB, Basch EM et al (2016) Evaluation of pedometry as a patient-centered outcome in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT): a comparison of pedometry and patient reports of symptoms, health, and quality of life. Qual Life Res 25(3):535–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bade BC, Brooks MC, Nietert SB et al (2016) Assessing the correlation between physical activity and quality of life in advanced lung cancer. Integr Cancer Ther 1:1534735416684016Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Blaauwbroek R, Bouma MJ, Tuinier W et al (2009) The effect of exercise counselling with feedback from a pedometer on fatigue in adult survivors of childhood cancer: a pilot study. Support Care Cancer 17(8):1041–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhang X, McClean D, Ko E, Morgan MA, Schmitz K (2017) Exercise among women with ovarian cancer: a Feasibility and Pre-/Post-Test Exploratory Pilot Study. Oncol Nurs Forum 44(3):366–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. A. Nyrop
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. M. Deal
    • 2
  • S. K. Choi
    • 4
  • C. W. Wagoner
    • 3
  • J. T. Lee
    • 3
  • A. Wood
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Anders
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. A. Carey
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. C. Dees
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. A. Jolly
    • 1
    • 2
  • K. E. Reeder-Hayes
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. B. Muss
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Hematology/Oncology, School of MedicineUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Department of Exercise and Sport ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations