An interventional study of Health Education and Physical Activity in Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Cell Neoplasm and Malignant Solid Neoplasm, sponsored by Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. Terminated at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-07-03.
Sponsored by Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
This clinical trial studies how to improve the diet quality and physical activity level of Latino cancer survivors living in rural areas. The recommendation to eat a high-quality diet and engage in moderate-to-vigorous physical exercise may reduce cancer risk, improve cancer survival rate, and reduce associated conditions. However, it is not well understood how best to teach cancer survivors, especially Latino cancer survivors living in rural areas, to achieve and maintain diet and physical activity. Understanding how to build a culturally appropriate education that is effective may improve the diet quality and physical activity level of Latino cancer survivors.
OUTLINE:
Patients attend 6 online nutrition and physical activity (PA) education classes, cooking sessions, and participate in physical activities over 120 minutes each. Patients also receive text messages, electronic newsletters and have access to an interactive nutrition website.
After completion of study, patients are followed up periodically.
9,365 studies on the registry are indexed under Neoplasms; 2,489 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 20 is below the median of 50 across 7,253 interventional studies indexed under Neoplasms.
Browse Neoplasms studies →Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center is the lead sponsor of 537 studies on the registry; 79 are open to participants now.
Of its 57 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 45 (79%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients attend 6 online nutrition and PA education classes, cooking sessions, and participate in physical activities over 120 minutes each. Patients also receive text messages, electronic newsletters and have access to an interactive nutrition website.
Behavioral: Health Education · Other: Physical Activity · Other: Health Promotion and Education: Text Messages · Other: Health Promotion and Education: Web Site · Other: Quality-of-Life Assessment · Other: Questionnaire Administration
Attend nutrition and PA classes, and cooking sessions
Participate in physical activities
Receive motivational text messages
Also known as: Text
Given access to nutrition website
Also known as: Internet Website, Website, www-website
Ancillary studies
Also known as: Quality of Life Assessment
Ancillary studies
Feasibility: Retention
Number of participants that completed the follow-up (3 month) data collection. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3-months
Feasibility: Adherence for Text Messages
Number of participants who responded to 1 or more text messages. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Adherence of Grocery Deliveries
Number of times participant received all 6 grocery deliveries. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Adherence for Online Sessions
For the purpose of this feasibility study, participants who completed at least 3 of the 6 online sessions were assessed. Participants attend 6 online nutrition and PA education classes, cooking sessions, and participate in physical activities over 120 minutes each. Patients also receive text messages, electronic newsletters and have access to an interactive nutrition website Health Education: Attend nutrition and PA classes, and cooking sessions Physical Activity: Participate in physical activities This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability of Cooking Sessions
Acceptability of the cooking sessions was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability of Recipes
Acceptability of recipes was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability Nutrition and Physical Activity Sessions
Acceptability of the nutrition and physical activity sessions was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability of Nutrition Text Messages
Acceptability of the nutrition text messages was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability of Physical Activity Text Messages
Acceptability of physical activity text messages was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability of Website
Acceptability of the website was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery.This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability of FITBit
Acceptability of the FITBit was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery.This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability of Monthly check-in Calls
Acceptability of monthly check-in calls was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Feasibility: Acceptability of Contact With Study Staff
Acceptability of contact with study staff was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
Time frame: At 3 months
Nutrition Preferences: Fruit and Vegetables
Nutrition preferences were measured using 17-questions adapted from a battery developed and validated by the study team. The battery is titled "The Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaires for Latinas" (preparing manuscript for submission). Participants were asked to rate their like or dislike for 11 specific fruits or vegetables (e.g., green cabbage, kale, turkey or veggie burgers, foods made with oil instead of butter or lard). For each fruit or vegetable listed they were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale with 1=strongly dislike to 5=strongly like or respond with "never tried it"=0. Scores are averaged across the 17 items. Higher scores are considered a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline and 3 months
Nutrition Self-Efficacy
Nutrition Self-efficacy was measured using 11-questions from a battery developed and validated by the study team. The battery is titled "The Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaires for Latinas" (preparing manuscript for submission). Participants were asked to rate thow confident they are in their ability to engage in healthy dietary behaviors for one month. For each behavior listed they were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale with 1=not at all confident to 5=extremely confident. Scores are averaged across the 11 items. Higher scores are considered a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline and 3 months
Nutrition Knowledge
Nutrition knowledge was a single question. The value reflects a change in the percent of women who correctly answered the targeted number of daily serving intake of fruits and vegetables at baseline compared to 3-month follow-up. The correct answer was 5-9 servings per day.
Time frame: Change in correct nutrition knowledge response from baseline to 3 month follow-up
Physical Activity Preferences
Physical Activity preferences were measured using 8-questions from a battery developed and validated by the study team. The battery is titled "The Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaires for Latinas" (preparing manuscript for submission). Participants were asked to rate their like or dislike for 8 specific types of physical activity (e.g., doing housework with vigorous effort, dancing in a group setting, playing with children with vigorous effort). For each activity listed they were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale with 1=strongly dislike to 5=strongly like or respond with "never tried it"=0. Scores are averaged across the 8 items. Higher scores are considered a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline and 3 months
Physical Activity Self-Efficacy
Physical Activity Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy was measured using 5-questions from a battery developed and validated by the study team. The battery is titled "The Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaires for Latinas" (preparing manuscript for submission). Participants were asked to rate how confident they are in their ability to engage in healthy physical activity behaviors given certain conditions (e.g., when you can't notice any improvements in your fitness, when you have many other demands on your time, when you feel a little stiff or sore) for one month. For each behavior listed they were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale with 1=not at all confident to 5=extremely confident. Scores are averaged across the 5 items. Higher scores are considered a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline and 3 months
Self-Reported Physical Activity: Time Sitting
Self-reported physical activity reflects change in time spent sitting (minutes/day). NOTE: The outcomes are reported as a change score (value at 3 months minus value at baseline)
Time frame: Baseline and 3 month follow-up
Self-Reported Physical Activity: Walking
Self-reported physical activity: walking (MET-minutes/week). NOTE: METs=metabolic equivalent of task. Walking in this case is defined as a light activity equivalent to \< 3 METs. The outcomes are reported as a change score (value at 3 months minus value at baseline).
Time frame: Baseline and 3 month-follow-up
Self-Reported Physical Activity: Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity
Self-reported physical activity includes moderate to vigorous physical activity (MET-minutes/week). NOTE: METs=metabolic equivalent of task. Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity is considered activities estimated at 3 or more METs. The outcomes are reported as a change score (value at 3 months minus value at baseline)
Time frame: Baseline and 3-month follow-up
The study was paused April 2020 due to the pandemic. Because we had not reached the number needed to begin our first intervention cohort and pandemic protocols halted our in-person study design, the project was paused. We revised the study design and began recruitment again with a new online version of the protocol, recruitment protocols, and participant eligibility on 9/16/2021. The revised protocol concluded on 2/25/2022.
| Milestone | eHealth Diet and Physical Activity Education and Communication |
|---|---|
| Started | 20 |
| Completed | 19 |
| Not completed | 1 |
Number of participants that completed the follow-up (3 month) data collection. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Feasibility: Retention | 19 |
Number of participants who responded to 1 or more text messages. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Feasibility: Adherence for Text Messages | 10 |
Number of times participant received all 6 grocery deliveries. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Feasibility: Adherence of Grocery Deliveries | 19 |
For the purpose of this feasibility study, participants who completed at least 3 of the 6 online sessions were assessed. Participants attend 6 online nutrition and PA education classes, cooking sessions, and participate in physical activities over 120 minutes each. Patients also receive text messages, electronic newsletters and have access to an interactive nutrition website Health Education: Attend nutrition and PA classes, and cooking sessions Physical Activity: Participate in physical activities This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Feasibility: Adherence for Online Sessions | 13 |
Acceptability of the cooking sessions was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Cooking sessions were somewhat or very helpful | 18 |
| Cooking sessions were somewhat or not very helpful or not at all helpful | 1 |
Acceptability of recipes was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Recipes were somewhat or very helpful | 19 |
| Recipes were somewhat or not at all helpful | 0 |
Acceptability of the nutrition and physical activity sessions was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Nutrition and physical activity sessions were somewhat or very helpful | 19 |
| Nutrition and physical activity sessions were not very helpful or not at all helpful | 0 |
Acceptability of the nutrition text messages was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| nutrition text messages were somewhat or very helpful | 18 |
| nutrition text messages were not very helpful or not at all helpful | 1 |
Acceptability of physical activity text messages was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| physical activity text messages were somewhat or very helpful | 18 |
| physical activity text messages were not very helpful or not at all helpful | 1 |
Acceptability of the website was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery.This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Website was somewhat or very helpful | 12 |
| Website was not very helpful or not at all helpful | 7 |
Acceptability of the FITBit was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery.This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Fitbits were somewhat or very helpful | 16 |
| Fitbits were not very helpful or not at all helpful | 3 |
Acceptability of monthly check-in calls was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Monthly checking in calls were somewhat or very helpful | 18 |
| Monthly checking in calls were not very helpful or not at all helpful | 1 |
Acceptability of contact with study staff was assessed during the exit interview. The exit interview asked participants to respond to a series of 15-questions assessing the helpfulness of each intervention component (e.g., online session, FITBit, e-communications, etc). Response options include a 6-item Likert scale (1=not at all helpful to 5=very helpful). A space for written-qualitative responses was also provided to allow the participant to provide information about the context and recommendations related to the intervention components/delivery. This feasibility study has primary outcomes that are descriptive in nature and do not include statistical analyses. The outcome measure data table provide the feasibility results for the project.
| Participants | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Contact with study staff was somewhat or very helpful | 18 |
| Contact with study staff was not very helpful or not at all helpful | 1 |
Nutrition preferences were measured using 17-questions adapted from a battery developed and validated by the study team. The battery is titled "The Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaires for Latinas" (preparing manuscript for submission). Participants were asked to rate their like or dislike for 11 specific fruits or vegetables (e.g., green cabbage, kale, turkey or veggie burgers, foods made with oil instead of butter or lard). For each fruit or vegetable listed they were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale with 1=strongly dislike to 5=strongly like or respond with "never tried it"=0. Scores are averaged across the 17 items. Higher scores are considered a better outcome.
| score on a scale | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 3.80 ± 0.89 |
| 3 month follow-up | 4.04 ± 0.41 |
Nutrition Self-efficacy was measured using 11-questions from a battery developed and validated by the study team. The battery is titled "The Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaires for Latinas" (preparing manuscript for submission). Participants were asked to rate thow confident they are in their ability to engage in healthy dietary behaviors for one month. For each behavior listed they were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale with 1=not at all confident to 5=extremely confident. Scores are averaged across the 11 items. Higher scores are considered a better outcome.
| score on a scale | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 3.20 ± 0.76 |
| 3 month follow-up | 3.34 ± 0.69 |
Nutrition knowledge was a single question. The value reflects a change in the percent of women who correctly answered the targeted number of daily serving intake of fruits and vegetables at baseline compared to 3-month follow-up. The correct answer was 5-9 servings per day.
| change in % of correct responses | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Nutrition Knowledge | 21 |
Physical Activity preferences were measured using 8-questions from a battery developed and validated by the study team. The battery is titled "The Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaires for Latinas" (preparing manuscript for submission). Participants were asked to rate their like or dislike for 8 specific types of physical activity (e.g., doing housework with vigorous effort, dancing in a group setting, playing with children with vigorous effort). For each activity listed they were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale with 1=strongly dislike to 5=strongly like or respond with "never tried it"=0. Scores are averaged across the 8 items. Higher scores are considered a better outcome.
| score on a scale | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 3.47 ± 0.70 |
| 3 month follow-up | 3.66 ± 0.55 |
Physical Activity Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy was measured using 5-questions from a battery developed and validated by the study team. The battery is titled "The Preferences and Self-Efficacy of Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors Questionnaires for Latinas" (preparing manuscript for submission). Participants were asked to rate how confident they are in their ability to engage in healthy physical activity behaviors given certain conditions (e.g., when you can't notice any improvements in your fitness, when you have many other demands on your time, when you feel a little stiff or sore) for one month. For each behavior listed they were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale with 1=not at all confident to 5=extremely confident. Scores are averaged across the 5 items. Higher scores are considered a better outcome.
| score on a scale | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 3.12 ± 0.69 |
| 3 month follow-up | 3.18 ± 0.64 |
Self-reported physical activity reflects change in time spent sitting (minutes/day). NOTE: The outcomes are reported as a change score (value at 3 months minus value at baseline)
| change in mean (minutes/day) | Health Services Research (eHealth Program) |
|---|---|
| Self-Reported Physical Activity: Time Sitting | -3.6 ± 128.7 |
Self-reported physical activity: walking (MET-minutes/week). NOTE: METs=metabolic equivalent of task. Walking in this case is defined as a light activity equivalent to \< 3 METs. The outcomes are reported as a change score (value at 3 months minus value at baseline).
| change in mean (MET-minutes/week) | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Self-Reported Physical Activity: Walking | 490 ± 907 |
Self-reported physical activity includes moderate to vigorous physical activity (MET-minutes/week). NOTE: METs=metabolic equivalent of task. Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity is considered activities estimated at 3 or more METs. The outcomes are reported as a change score (value at 3 months minus value at baseline)
| change in mean (MET-minutes/week) | Health Services: Single Arm Feasibility Online Diet and Physical Activity and eHealth Communication |
|---|---|
| Self-Reported Physical Activity: Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity | -1024 ± 4709 |
Collected over 3 month intervention delivery period.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| eHealth Diet and Physical Activity Program | 0/20 (0%) | 0/20 (0%) | 0/20 (0%) |
| Age, Continuous(years) | Single Arm |
|---|---|
| Mean | 49.8 ± 13 |
| Sex: Female, Male(Participants) | Single Arm |
|---|---|
| Female | 19 |
| Male | 1 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Single Arm |
|---|---|
| Hispanic or Latino | 20 |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 0 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 0 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants) | Single Arm |
|---|---|
| Race — Other | 7 |
| Race — White | 12 |
| Race — Black or African American | 1 |
| Region of Enrollment(Participants) | Single Arm |
|---|---|
| United States | 20 |
| Place of Birth(Participants) | Single Arm |
|---|---|
| U.S born | 12 |
| Foreign born | 8 |
| Years of education(years) | Single Arm |
|---|---|
| Mean | 12.3 ± 3.8 |
| Body Mass Index(kg/m-squared) | Single Arm |
|---|---|
| Mean | 33.6 ± 7.2 |
6 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No
This study is terminated, as verified in Jun 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center