Dataset Information

Congruence and trajectories of device-measured and self-reported physical activity during therapy for early breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study examines congruence between self-reported and device-measured physical activity data in women with early breast cancer and compares trajectories under different treatments.

Methods

Women with non-metastatic breast cancer were recruited before primary therapy. In four weeks distributed over six months after treatment start, patients reported time spent on work, transport, chores and sports via diary and wore Garmin^® vivofit 3 accelerometers to assess steps taken. Associations between these measures and agreement regarding guideline adherence were tested with Spearman's Correlation Coefficient and Weighted Kappa statistic. Effects of time and treatment were evaluated using mixed analyses of variance.

Results

Ninety-nine participants (median age = 50) were treated with adjuvant (N = 23), neoadjuvant (N = 21) or without chemotherapy (N = 55). Coherence between self-report and device data was strong (r = 0.566). Agreement about reaching recommendations was only "fair" (kappa coefficient = 0.321 and 0.249, resp.). Neither treatment or week nor their interaction had effects on step counts (all p > 0.05). Self-reported activity time was lower for patients with chemotherapy than for those without (adjuvant: ∆ = 69min, p = 0.006, neoadjuvant: ∆ = 45min, p = 0.038) and lower in week 18 than in week 3 (∆ = 43min, p = 0.010).

Conclusion

Results show that consumer-grade activity monitors and self-reports correlate but show different perspectives on physical activity in breast cancer patients. In general, patients perceive some decline regardless of primary treatment regimen. Those affected should be offered assistance to gain the benefits of activity. Accelerometers may help professionals to identify these individuals and patients to verify appraisal of their activity levels.

SUBMITTER: Helbrich H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8260526 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs children show a more complex but less structured movement behavior than adults, assessment of their many spontaneous and impulsive movements is a challenge for physical activity (PA) assessment. Since neither questionnaires nor accelerometers enable optimal detection of all facets of PA, a multimodal, combined approach of self-reported and device-based methods is recommended. Based on the number of days on which the participants reached the physical activity (PA) values given in the WHO guideline, this study examines 1) the difference between self-reported and device-based, measured PA and 2) whether PA differences between age and gender groups obtained by two methods are comparable.MethodsParticipants aged 6-17 years were randomly chosen and data were collected representatively at 167 sample points throughout Germany within the Motorik-Modul Study. PA of n = 2694 participants (52.3% female) was measured using the ActiGraph accelerometer (ACC) and a physical activity questionnaire (PAQ). The sample was divided into three age groups (6-10 yrs. n = 788, 11-13 yrs. n = 823, 14-17 yrs. n = 1083). Numbers of days per week with at least 60 min moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) were analyzed for both methods.ResultsOnly every 25th respondent (4%) reaches the WHO standard of 60 min MVPA every day if measured with ACC. Self-reported PA was slightly higher (9%) (meanPAQ = 3.82 days; meanACC = 2.34 days; Fmethod = 915.85; p = <.001; fCohen = .64). The differences between the methods are significantly smaller in younger children than in the older age groups (Fage = 264.2, p < .001; fCohen = .48). The older the subjects are, the lower is the proportion of those who meet the WHO guideline on each day, with girls meeting the guideline less frequently than boys in all age groups.ConclusionChildren and adolescents living in Germany show a very low adherence to the WHO guideline on PA. While younger children are much more active with their free play, especially children over 10 years of age and especially girls should be the target of programs to increase PA.

Project description:ObjectiveIn a sample of 368 postmenopausal women, we (1) determined within-cohort and between-cohort relationships between adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer and self-reported cognitive function during the first 18 months of therapy and (2) evaluated the influence of co-occurring symptoms, neuropsychological function, and other covariates on relationships.MethodsWe evaluated self-reported cognitive function, using the Patient Assessment of Own Functioning Inventory (PAOFI), and potential covariates (e.g., co-occurring symptom scores and neuropsychological function z-scores) in 158 women receiving aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy alone, 104 women receiving chemotherapy followed by AI therapy, and 106 non-cancer controls. Patients were assessed before systemic therapy and then every 6 months, for a total of four assessments over 18 months. Controls were assessed at matched time points. Mixed-effects modeling was used to determine longitudinal relationships.ResultsControlling for covariates, patients enrolled before chemotherapy reported poorer global cognitive function (p < 0.001), memory (p < 0.001), language and communication (p < 0.001), and sensorimotor function (p = 0.002) after chemotherapy. These patients reported poorer higher-level cognitive and intellectual functions from before chemotherapy to 12 months after initiation of AI therapy (p < 0.001). Higher levels of depressive symptoms (p < 0.001), anxiety (p < 0.001), and fatigue (p = 0.040) at enrollment were predictors of poorer cognitive function over time. PAOFI total score was a predictor of executive function (p = 0.048) and visual working memory (p = 0.005) z-scores, controlling for covariates.ConclusionsFindings provide further evidence of poorer self-reported cognitive function after chemotherapy and of relationships between co-occurring symptoms and cognitive changes. AI therapy alone does not have an impact on self-reported cognitive function. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers). OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. METHODS:Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses. RESULTS:The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019118755.