Associations Among Wearable Activity Tracker Use, Exercise Motivation, and Physical Activity in a Cohort of Cancer Survivors: Secondary Data Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors who meet physical activity (PA) recommendations (≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] per week) experience better health outcomes. With the growing availability of wearable activity trackers (WATs), it may be easier to track PA. However, it is unknown what motivates survivors to use these devices. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the associations among motivations for exercise, previous WAT use for tracking a health goal or activity, and meeting the recommended amount of PA among a cohort of cancer survivors. METHODS: Data on WAT users who reported having a previous cancer diagnosis were analyzed from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 3. All survivors with complete information on demographics, exercise motivations (internal guilt, external pressure, physical appearance, and exercise enjoyment), previous WAT use (yes or no), and minutes of MVPA per week (N=608) were included. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to test these associations. A separate cluster analysis was conducted to identify the profiles of exercise motivation that were associated with reporting WAT use. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 66.9 years (SD 12.1). The majority were non-Hispanic White (473/608, 78.8%) and female (322/608, 54.9%), and skin cancer was the most commonly reported diagnosed cancer (154/608, 27.8%). Survivors who reported using WATs to track a health goal or activity were 1.6 times more likely to meet MVPA recommendations than those who did not use WATs (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.03-2.65; P=.04). When exercise motivations were assessed independently, survivors who reported not feeling any internal guilt as an exercise motivation were 73% less likely to report having used a WAT than those who felt any internal guilt (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14-0.54; P<.001). A total of 3 distinct motivational profiles emerged from the cluster analysis. WAT users had an increased probability of membership in profile 3, which was characterized as being strongly motivated to exercise by internal guilt, physical appearance, and exercise enjoyment (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.1-9.7; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among this cohort, survivors who reported using WATs to track a health goal or activity were significantly more likely to report meeting PA recommendations. Survivors who reported feeling internal guilt as an exercise motivation were significantly more likely to report using WATs to track a health goal or activity. When examining clusters of motivation, survivors who reported previous WAT use were more likely to report being motivated to exercise by a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, including internal guilt, exercise enjoyment, and physical appearance. Given the health benefits of PA for cancer survivors, technology-focused interventions that use WATs and target exercise motivation may aid in cancer survivors meeting the level of recommended PA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".