Usability and Implementation Considerations of Fitbit and App Intervention for Diverse Cancer Survivors: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite the known benefits of physical activity, cancer survivors remain insufficiently active. Prior trials have adopted digital health methods, although several have been pedometer-based and enrolled mainly female, non-Hispanic White, and more highly educated survivors of breast cancer. Objective The objective of this study was to test a previously developed mobile health system consisting of a Fitbit activity tracker and the MyDataHelps smartphone app for feasibility in a diverse group of cancer survivors, with the goal of refining the program and setting the stage for a larger future trial. Methods Participants were identified from one academic medical center’s electronic health records, referred by a clinician, or self-referred to participate in the study. Participants were screened for eligibility, enrolled, provided a Fitbit activity tracker, and instructed to download the Fitbit: Health & Wellness and MyDataHelps apps. They completed usability surveys at 1 and 3 months. Interviews were conducted at the end of the 3-month intervention with participants and cancer care clinicians to assess the acceptability of the intervention and the implementation of the intervention into clinical practice, respectively. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics, usability surveys, and Fitbit adherence and step counts. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify key findings from interview transcriptions. Results Of the 100 patients screened for eligibility, 31 were enrolled in the trial (mean age 64.8, SD 11.1 years; female patients=17/31, 55%; Hispanic or Latino=7/31, 23%; non-White=11/31, 35%; less than a bachelor’s degree=14/31, 45%; and household income Conclusions Implementing a remotely delivered, light-intensity physical activity program was feasible and acceptable in a sample of diverse cancer survivors. Future studies should consider registry-based methods and work with clinicians to engage hard-to-reach survivor populations who have low physical activity levels and disproportionately high adverse health outcomes.
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 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".