Advertisement

Sedentary behavior after breast cancer: motivational, demographic, disease, and health status correlates of sitting time in breast cancer survivors

  • Kara L. GavinEmail author
  • Whitney A. Welch
  • David E. Conroy
  • Sarah Kozey-Keadle
  • Christine Pellegrini
  • Alison Cottrell
  • Anne Nielsen
  • Payton Solk
  • Juned Siddique
  • Siobhan M. Phillips
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Sedentary behavior is associated with poor health outcomes including obesity, lower quality of life, and mortality in breast cancer survivors. This study sought to identify motivational, demographic, and disease characteristics of breast cancer survivors who engage in greater amounts of sedentary behavior.

Methods

Multivariate linear regression models estimated associations between demographic, disease, and health characteristics with reported sitting in breast cancer survivors (n = 279; Mage = 60.7 (± 9.7) years). Regression models estimated associations between motivational factors and reported sitting adjusted for demographic and disease and health covariates.

Results

Working at least part-time and marital status were associated various sitting domains including weekday and non-leisure sitting. Higher BMI was associated with more average daily, weekend, and weekday sitting. High income was additionally associated with less non-leisure sitting. The belief that sedentary behavior is bad for health, physical function, and self-evaluative OE, and lifestyle self-efficacy were associated with multiple sitting domains in both univariate and covariate-adjusted models.

Conclusions

Future work should examine the relationships between motivational, demographic, and disease predictors and objectively measured sedentary behavior over time and across different sedentary behavior domains. Understanding activity changes during and after treatment is needed to identify intervention targets and develop effective interventions.

Keywords

Sedentary behavior Breast cancer survivors Motivational factors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant Number UL1TR000150. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phillips is also supported by the National Cancer Institute [K07CA196840]. Dr. Gavin and Dr. Welch are supported by NCI training Grant [T32 CA139139, PIs: Spring].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards (IRB Approval Number: STU00201007).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Hamood R et al (2018) Diabetes after hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors: a case-cohort study. J Clin Oncol 36(20):2061–2019Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mehta LS et al (2018) Cardiovascular disease and breast cancer: where these entities intersect: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 137(8):e30–e66Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carreira H et al (2017) Adverse mental health outcomes in breast cancer survivors compared to women who did not have cancer: systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 6(1):162PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agrawal S (2014) Late effects of cancer treatment in breast cancer survivors. South Asian J Cancer 3(2):112–115PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tremblay MS et al (2017) Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN)—terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 14(1):75–75PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sedentary BRN (2012) Letter to the editor: standardized use of the terms “sedentary” and “sedentary behaviours”. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 37(3):540–542Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lynch BM et al (2010) Objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time of breast cancer survivors, and associations with adiposity: findings from NHANES (2003–2006). Cancer Causes Control 21(2):283–288Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibbs BB et al (2015) Definition, measurement, and health risks associated with sedentary behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47(6):1295–1300PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Phillips SM et al (2015) Objectively-measured physical activity and sedentary behavior and quality of life indicators in breast cancer survivors. Cancer 121(22):4044–4052PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forsythe LP et al (2013) Pain in long-term breast cancer survivors: the role of body mass index, physical activity, and sedentary behavior. Breast Cancer Res Treat 137(2):617–630Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blair CK et al (2014) Light-intensity activity attenuates functional decline in older cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46(7):1375–1383PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nelson SH et al (2016) Impact of very low physical activity, BMI, and comorbidities on mortality among breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat155(3):551–557PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phillips SM et al (2015) Physical activity and sedentary behavior in breast cancer survivors: new insight into activity patterns and potential intervention targets. Gynecol Oncol 138(2):398–404PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hartman SJ, Nelson SH, Weiner LS (2018) Patterns of fitbit use and activity levels throughout a physical activity intervention: exploratory analysis from a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 6(2):e29PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rethorst CD et al (2018) The promoting activity in cancer survivors (PACES) trial: a multiphase optimization of strategy approach to increasing physical activity in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer 18(1):744PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prince SA et al (2014) A comparison of the effectiveness of physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in reducing sedentary time in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Obes Rev 15(11):905–919PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siddique J et al (2017) The effect of changes in physical activity on sedentary behavior: results from a randomized lifestyle intervention trial. Am J Health Promot AJHP 31(4):287–295Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lynch BM et al (2018) Study design and methods for the ACTIVity And TEchnology (ACTIVATE) trial. Contemp Clin Trials 64:112–117Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koutoukidis DA et al (2018) Use of intervention mapping to adapt a health behavior change intervention for endometrial cancer survivors: the shape-up following cancer treatment program. BMC Public Health 18(1):415–415PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lynch BM et al (2016) Patterns and correlates of accelerometer-assessed physical activity and sedentary time among colon cancer survivors. Cancer Causes Control 27(1):59–68Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rhodes RE, Mark RS, Temmel CP (2012) Adult sedentary behavior: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 42(3):e3–e28Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rollo S, Gaston A, Prapavessis H (2016) Cognitive and motivational factors associated with sedentary behavior: a systematic review. AIMS Public Health 3(4):956–984PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phillips SM et al (2016) Correlates of objectively measured sedentary behavior in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Causes Control 27(6):787–795PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ince ML (2008) Use of a social cognitive theory-based physical-activity intervention on health-promoting behaviors of university students. Percept Mot Skills 107(3):833–836Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stacey FG et al (2016) Social cognitive theory mediators of physical activity in a lifestyle program for cancer survivors and carers: findings from the ENRICH randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 13:49PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Doerksen SE, McAuley E (2014) Social cognitive determinants of dietary behavior change in university employes. Front Public Health 2:23PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bricker JB et al (2010) Social cognitive mediators of adolescent smoking cessation: results from a large randomized intervention trial. Psychol Addict Behav 24(3):436–445PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keadle SK et al (2017) Targeting reductions in sitting time to increase physical activity and improve health. Med Sci Sports Exerc 49(8):1572–1582PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prapavessis H, Gaston A, DeJesus S (2015) The theory of planned behavior as a model for understanding sedentary behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc 19:23–32Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hartman SJ et al (2018) Sedentary behaviors and biomarkers among breast cancer survivors. J Phys Act Health 15(1):1–6Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kindred MM, Pinto BM, Dunsiger SI (2018) Predictors of sedentary behavior among colorectal survivors. Support Care Cancer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4452-2 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harris PA et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lloyd GR et al (2016) Breast cancer survivors’ beliefs and preferences regarding technology-supported sedentary behavior reduction interventions. AIMS Public Health 3(3):592–614PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Phillips SM et al (2017) Breast cancer survivors’ preferences for technology-supported exercise interventions. Support Care Cancer 25(10):3243–3252PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marshall AL et al (2010) Measuring total and domain-specific sitting: a study of reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42(6):1094–1102Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Welch WAL, Gillian R, Awick EA, Siddique J, McAuley E, Phillips SM (2018) Measurement of physical activity and sedentary behavior in breast cancer survivors. J Commun Support Oncol 16(1):e21–e29Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Amireault S et al (2015) The use of the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire in oncology research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:60PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McAuley E (1992) The role of efficacy cognitions in the prediction of exercise behavior in middle-aged adults. J Behav Med 15(1):65–88Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McAuley E (1993) Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise participation in older adults. J Behav Med 16(1):103–113Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wójcicki TR, White SM, McAuley E (2009) Assessing outcome expectations in older adults: the multidimensional outcome expectations for exercise scale. J Gerontol B 64B(1):33–40Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Verplanken B, Orbell S (2006) Reflections on past behavior: a self-report index of habit strength1. J Appl Social Psychol 33(6):1313–1330Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Conroy DE et al (2013) Sedentary behavior as a daily process regulated by habits and intentions. Health Psychol 32(11):1149–1157PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Hayduk LA (2002) Does personality moderate the theory of planned behavior in the exercise domain? J Sport Exerc Psychol 24(2):120–132Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rise J, Thompson M, Verplanken B (2003) Measuring implementation intentions in the context of the theory of planned behavior. Scand J Psychol 44(2):87–95Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shibata A et al. (2018) Objectively-assessed patterns and reported domains of sedentary behavior among japanese older adults. J Epidemiol.  https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20180041 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shi JW et al (2017) Physical activity and sedentary behavior in breast and colon cancer survivors relative to adults without cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 92(3):391–398Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shuval K et al (2017) Income, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and the ‘weekend warrior’ among U.S. adults. Prev Med 103:91–97Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    D’Silva A et al (2018) Demographic and clinical correlates of accelerometer assessed physical activity and sedentary time in lung cancer survivors. Psychooncology 27(3):1042–1049Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Henson J et al (2016) Sedentary behaviour as a new behavioural target in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 32(Suppl 1):213–220Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kampshoff CS et al (2016) Demographic, clinical, psychosocial, and environmental correlates of objectively assessed physical activity among breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 24:3333–3342PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schmitz KH et al (2010) American College of Sports Medicine roundtable on exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42(7):1409–1426Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nahum-Shani I et al (2018) Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Ann Behav Med 52(6):446–462Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Burke LE et al (2017) Ecological momentary assessment in behavioral research: addressing technological and human participant challenges. J Med Internet Res 19(3):e77PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dunton GF (2017) Ecological momentary assessment in physical activity research. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 45(1):48–54PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kara L. Gavin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Whitney A. Welch
    • 1
  • David E. Conroy
    • 2
  • Sarah Kozey-Keadle
    • 3
  • Christine Pellegrini
    • 4
  • Alison Cottrell
    • 1
  • Anne Nielsen
    • 1
  • Payton Solk
    • 1
  • Juned Siddique
    • 1
  • Siobhan M. Phillips
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Preventive MedicineNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  3. 3.California Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations