Effects of the ACTIVity And TEchnology (ACTIVATE) intervention on health‐related quality of life and fatigue outcomes in breast cancer survivors

• Published in: Psycho-oncology (Chichester, England) England), 2020-01, Vol.29 (1), p.204-211
• Main Authors: Vallance, Jeff K., Nguyen, Nga H., Moore, Melissa M., Reeves, Marina M., Rosenberg, Dori E., Boyle, Terry, Milton, Shakira, Friedenreich, Christine M., English, Dallas R., Lynch, Brigid M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavior; Breast cancer; Chronic illnesses; Efficacy; eHealth; Exercise; Fatigue; Functional assessment; Health status; Inactive; Intensive care; Intensive treatment; Intervention; Medical technology; Physical activity; Postmenopausal women; Quality of life; Sedentary; Sedentary behavior; sedentary time; Survivor
• ISSN: 1057-9249; 1099-1611
• DOI: 10.1002/pon.5298

Background The ACTIVATE Trial examined the efficacy of a wearable‐based intervention to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior in breast cancer survivors. This paper examines the effects of the intervention on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and fatigue at 12 weeks (T2; end of intervention) and 24 weeks (T3; follow‐up). Methods Inactive and postmenopausal women who had completed primary treatment for stage I‐III breast cancer were randomized to intervention or waitlist control. Physical activity and sedentary behavior were measured by Actigraph and activPAL accelerometers at baseline (T1), end of the intervention (T2), and 12 weeks follow‐up (T3). HRQoL and fatigue were measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Breast (FACT‐B) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue (FACIT‐Fatigue). Primary intervention effects were evaluated comparing intervention and waitlist group at T2 using repeated measures mixed effects models. Results Overall, 83 women were randomized and trial retention was high (94%). A 4.6‐point difference in fatigue score was observed between groups at T2 (95% CI: 1.3, 7.8) indicating improvement in fatigue profiles in the intervention group. In within groups analyses, the intervention group reported a 5.1‐point increase in fatigue from baseline to T2 (95% CI: 2.0, 8.2) and a 3.3‐point increase from baseline to T3 (95% CI: 0.1, 6.41). Conclusions Despite small improvements in fatigue profiles, no effects on HRQoL were observed. While the ACTIVATE Trial was associated with improvements in physical activity and sedentary behavior, more intensive or longer duration interventions may be needed to facilitate changes in HRQoL.