Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026
A Novel Digital Platform for a Monitored Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program
Published on: April 19, 2019
Improving physical activity in men with prostate cancer through wearable devices and online education: Randomized
Meagan O'Neill1, Catherine M Sabiston2, George Tomlinson3
1Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Objectives:
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is common in men with prostate cancer (PC). Physical activity is helpful in reducing CRF; however, it is unclear if reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) improves CRF. Technology-based interventions, wearable technology (WEAR) and online educational workshops (EDU), have shown to increase physical activity and affect health behaviour; however, their impact on CRF are less clear. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of a pilot randomized controlled trial of technology-based interventions to reduce SB and improve CRF.
Methods:
Participants were adult males with PC, currently sedentary (<150 min per week of activity), fluent in English, and had a computer with internet access. Participants were randomized in a 2x2 factorial design (WEAR only, EDU only, WEAR + EDU, and control). Feasibility metrics included consent rate, retention rate, adherence, and study acceptability. Assessments consisted of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Fatigue (FACT-F) (Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) = 3), Sit-Q-7d (MCID = 1.9), Accelerometry, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Descriptive statistics were used for feasibility outcomes and a constrained longitudinal data analysis was used for efficacy outcomes.
Results:
Twenty-one participants, mean age of 67 (SD 8.7) years and mainly retired (52.4%), were recruited. Neither consent rate (28/231, 12.1%) nor retention rate (11/21, 52.4%) met feasibility targets; however, there was moderate intervention adherence (3/5, 60%). Trends of reduced SB and CRF were seen in participants who used a WEAR device. Average effects across times for fatigue (FACT-F) were 3.8 (95% CI -5.4, 12.9) for WEAR and -1.1 (-10.4, 8.3) for EDU. Effects on SB (Sit-Q-7d) were 2.3 (-2.8, 7.4) for WEAR and -1.0 (-5.7, 3.7) for EDU.
Conclusion:
Although consent and retention rates were low, participants found the study acceptable and were adherent. Unfortunately, the study was not large enough to precisely estimate treatment effects.
Practical Implications:
Future studies should continue to evaluate WEAR and EDU, using strategies to increase recruitment and retention. Clinicians should encourage cancer survivors to reduce SB, increase physical activity through education and wearable devices.
