A Lifestyle Intervention via Email in Minority Breast Cancer Survivors: Randomized Parallel-Group Feasibility Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Our data have indicated that minority breast cancer survivors are receptive to participating in lifestyle interventions delivered via email or the Web, yet few Web-based studies exist in this population. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and preliminary results of an email-delivered diet and activity intervention program, “A Lifestyle Intervention Via Email (ALIVE),” delivered to a sample of racial and ethnic minority breast cancer survivors. METHODS Survivors (mean age: 52 years, 83% [59/71] African American) were recruited and randomized to receive either the ALIVE program’s 3-month physical activity track or its 3-month dietary track. The fully automated system provided tools for self-monitoring and goal setting, tailored content, and automated phone calls. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effects models were computed to examine the outcomes of the study. RESULTS Upon completion, 44 of 71 survivors completed the study. Our “intention-to-treat” analysis revealed that participants in the physical activity track made greater improvements in moderate to vigorous activity than those in the dietary track (+97 vs. +49 min/week, P<.001). Similarly, reductions in total sedentary time among those in the physical activity track (−304 vs. −59 min/week, P<.001) was nearly 5 times greater than that for participants in the dietary track. Our completers case analysis indicated that participants in the dietary track made improvements in the intake of fiber (+4.4 g/day), fruits and vegetables (+1.0 cup equivalents/day), and reductions in saturated fat (−2.3 g/day) and trans fat (−0.3 g/day) (all P<.05). However, these improvements in dietary intake were not significantly different from the changes observed by participants in the physical activity track (all P>.05). Process evaluation data indicated that most survivors would recommend ALIVE to other cancer survivors (97%), were satisfied with ALIVE (82%), and felt that ALIVE was effective (73%). However, survivors expressed concerns about the functionality of the interactive emails. CONCLUSIONS ALIVE appears to be feasible for racial and ethnic minority cancer survivors and showed promising results for larger implementation. Although survivors favored the educational content, a mobile phone app and interactive emails that work on multiple email domains may help to boost adherence rates and to improve satisfaction with the Web-based platform. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02722850; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02722850 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6tHN9VsPh)
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".