Evidence Hub

A randomized phase II trial of MOVING ON: An intervention to increase exercise outcome expectations among breast cancer survivors

Hirschey R, Kimmick G, Hockenberry M, Shaw R, Pan W, Page C, Lipkus I

Psycho-oncology, 2018

60 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study is to test theoretical intervention fidelity and feasibility of MOVING ON, a self-directed, home-based, randomized controlled trial to increase exercise outcome expectations (OEs) (what one expects to obtain or avoid as a result of a behavior or lack thereof), among breast cancer survivors.

Method: Stage Ia to IIb survivors (n = 60) were given the MOVING ON intervention or control booklet. Data were collected through online surveys and an accelerometer at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks postintervention. Fidelity was measured by questions assessing participant perceptions of MOVING ON (score ≥2) and direction of intervention effects. Feasibility was measured by recruitment rate (target of 60 participants in 6 months), retention (total attrition <17%), and acquisition of accelerometer data (% ≥subjective exercise data obtained). Analyses consisted of descriptive statistics, mixed models, and content analysis.

Results: Fidelity met a priori criteria (mean = 3.31, SD = 0.87). Outcome expectations increased 0.01 points, and weekly steps increased by 970 every 4 weeks in the intervention arm compared to the control arm. All effect sizes were small, ranging from 0.01 to 0.09. Target enrollment, achieved in 17 weeks, met a priori feasibility criteria. Retention (66%) and accelerometer data acquisition (60%) (compared to 73% of subjective exercise data) did not.

Conclusion: MOVING ON influenced OEs as intended and was well received by participants.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 60 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free