Current Evidence and Directions for Future Research in eHealth Physical Activity Interventions for Adults Affected by Cancer: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) interventions can increase PA and improve well-being among adults affected by cancer; however, most adults do not meet cancer-specific PA recommendations. Lack of time, facility access, and travel distances are barriers to participation in PA interventions. eHealth technologies may address some of these barriers, serving as a viable way to promote PA behavior change in this population. However, no review from July 2018 has synthesized available evidence across eHealth and cancer types or examined the use of behavioral theory and behavior change techniques (BCTs), leaving important gaps in knowledge. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to provide a comprehensive, updated overview of evidence on eHealth PA interventions for adults with cancer by describing the current state of the literature, exploring associations between intervention characteristics and effectiveness, and identifying future research needs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched for eHealth PA interventions for adults affected by cancer. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate, with consultation from the senior author (NCR). BCT coding, risk of bias, and completeness of reporting were performed using standardized tools. Results were summarized via narrative synthesis and harvest plots. Weight analyses were conducted to explore the associations between intervention characteristics and effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 71 articles (67 studies) involving 6655 participants (mean age 56.7 years, SD 8.2) were included. Nearly 50% (32/67) of the articles were published after July 2018. Significant postintervention PA increases were noted in 52% (35/67) of the studies, and PA maintenance was noted in 41% (5/12) of the studies that included a follow-up. Study duration, primary objectives, and eHealth modality (eg, websites, activity trackers, and SMS text messaging) varied widely. Social cognitive theory (23/67, 34%) was the most used theory. The mean number of BCTs used across the studies was 13.5 (SD 5.5), with self-monitoring, credible sources, and goal setting being used in >90% of studies. Weight analyses showed the greatest associations between increased PA levels and PA as a primary outcome (0.621), interventions using websites (0.656) or mobile apps (0.563), interventions integrating multiple behavioral theories (0.750), and interventions using BCTs of problem solving (0.657) and action planning (0.645). All studies had concerns with high risk of bias, mostly because of the risk of confounding, measurement bias, and incomplete reporting. CONCLUSIONS: A range of eHealth PA interventions may increase PA levels among adults affected by cancer, and specific components (eg, websites, use of theory, and action planning) may be linked to greater effectiveness. However, more work is needed to ascertain and optimize effectiveness, measure long-term effects, and address concerns with bias and incomplete reporting. This evidence is required to support arguments for integrating eHealth within PA promotion in oncology.
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 | 0.036 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".