A Smartphone App (WExercise) to Promote Physical Activity Among Cancer Survivors: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cancer survivors face unique health challenges that may be addressed through physical activity (PA) interventions. Technology-based tools provide innovative, resource-efficient alternatives to traditional approaches, delivering PA interventions. Objective: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a smartphone app (WExercise) in promoting PA among cancer survivors. Methods: This study was an assessor-blind, 2-arm randomized controlled trial. The intervention group used WExercise, which consisted of automated weekly lessons developed based on the multi-process action control (M-PAC) framework. The control group received written PA recommendations. Ninety-eight physically inactive cancer survivors who had completed curative treatment were recruited from an oncology clinic and the community. Outcomes included exercise behavior (primary), exercise capacity, quality of life, and M-PAC constructs. Results: The majority (81/98, 82.7%) of participants remained in the study. The proportion of participants completing at least 75% of lessons was 69.44%. For exercise behavior, mixed findings were identified: the intervention group had a significantly greater increase in self-reported moderate-to-vigorous PA compared to the control group at postintervention (mean difference in change 89.02 minutes, 95% CI 34.87-143.16) and 3 months postintervention (mean difference in change 49.37 minutes, 95% CI 8.63-90.10; group × time interaction; P=.003), while no significant effect on ActiGraph-measured moderate-to-vigorous PA was observed at postintervention (mean difference in change -8.54 minutes, 95% CI -36.19 to 19.11) and 3 months postintervention (mean difference in change 2.56 minutes, 95% CI -27.29 to 32.41; group × time interaction; P=.74). WExercise was also effective in increasing cancer survivors' exercise capacity but not their quality of life or M-PAC constructs. Conclusions: WExercise demonstrated a significant effect on increasing self-reported PA, but this was not corroborated with ActiGraph-measured PA. The application may be a useful addition for clinicians aiming to promote physical activity in people with cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.013 | 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".