Most Americans take dietary supplements (DSs) and use is even higher among cancer survivors. This secondary analysis seeks to identify types, reasons, and costs of supplements used by 367 older cancer survivors enrolled in the Harvest for Health vegetable gardening trial and evaluate associations between supplement intake and medical/socio-demographic factors. Descriptive statistics were used to identify supplement type and reasons for use. Average market price was used to estimate cost. Fifty-nine percent of the sample reported supplement use. Female (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35–3.30), non-Hispanic White (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.05–3.0), and breast and gynecological survivors (OR 1.57, 1.03–2.38) were significantly more likely to report DS use compared to males, minorities, and survivors of other cancers. Use of vitamins (39%), multivitamins (23%), and minerals (12%) were the most prevalent. Commonly reported reasons for supplement use were to improve general health (47%) or treat medical conditions (39%) and cancer-related symptoms (12%). DSs daily costs ranged from USD 0.02 to 19.81, with a mean of USD 1.28 ± 1.74, a median of USD 0.78, and a mode of USD 0.34. DS use is prevalent among older cancer survivors, with overall health reported as the leading reason for use. Out-of-pocket recurrent costs can be substantial and underscore the need to promote a nutrient-rich diet whenever possible in this vulnerable population.

(1) Background: A healthful diet, regular physical activity, and weight management are cornerstones for cancer prevention and control. Yet, adherence is low in cancer survivors and others, calling for innovative solutions. Daughters, dUdes, mothers, and othErs fighting cancer Together (DUET) is a 6-month, online, diet-and-exercise, weight-loss intervention to improve health behaviors and outcomes among cancer survivor-partner dyads. (2) Methods: DUET was tested in 56 dyads (survivors of obesity-related cancers and chosen partners) (n = 112), both with overweight/obesity, sedentary behavior, and suboptimal diets. After baseline assessment, dyads were randomized to DUET intervention or waitlist control arms; data were collected at 3- and 6-months and analyzed using chi-square, t-tests, and mixed linear models (α < 0.05). (3) Results: Retention was 89% and 100% in waitlisted and intervention arms, respectively. Dyad weight loss (primary outcome) averaged −1.1 (waitlist) vs. −2.8 kg (intervention) (p = 0.044/time-by-arm interaction p = 0.033). Caloric intake decreased significantly in DUET survivors versus controls (p = 0.027). Evidence of benefit was observed for physical activity and function, blood glucose, and c-reactive protein. Dyadic terms were significant across outcomes, suggesting that the partner-based approach contributed to intervention-associated improvements. (4) Conclusions: DUET represents a pioneering effort in scalable, multi-behavior weight management interventions to promote cancer prevention and control, calling for studies that are larger in size, scope, and duration.

Mechanisms that explain behavior change within web-based lifestyle interventions are not well-studied. This secondary analysis explores whether the effects of the DUET web-based lifestyle intervention on diet, physical activity, and/or adiposity are mediated through changes in self-efficacy, social support, and perceived barriers (key constructs of social cognitive theory). Data on mediators, diet quality, caloric intake, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), weight, and waist circumference (WC) were analyzed from 112 cancer survivors and their partners enrolled in the DUET intervention. Mediation analyses were performed using Mplus to execute regression analyses and determine associations. Mediation analyses supported an effect of the intervention on caloric intake (−3.52, 95% CI [−8.08 to −0.84]), weight (−1.60, CI [−3.84 to −0.47]), and WC (−0.83, CI [−1.77 to −0.18]), interpreting these negative associations as intervention induced reductions in dietary barriers. Higher social support was significantly and positively associated with, but not a mediator for, improvements in self-reported and accelerometry-measured MVPA (b = 0.69, CI [0.19, 1.24]) and (b = 0.55, CI [0.15, 1.00]), respectively. Self-efficacy did not appear to mediate the intervention’s effects. Findings suggest that the effects of the DUET intervention on diet and adiposity stem from reducing perceived barriers to a healthful, low-calorie diet.

Purpose: Parental or spousal cohabitating relationships are often targeted in behavioral interventions, but the contribution of cohabitation is poorly understood. This study explored whether cohabitation status moderated the impact of social cognitive theory constructs on adiposity, diet, and exercise in a dyadic, web-based weight loss intervention among cancer survivors and their chosen partners. Methods: The 24-week weight loss intervention was conducted among 56 dyads, comprised of a cancer survivor and their chosen partner (n = 112). Baseline and 6-month data on social cognitive theory constructs (self-efficacy, social support, and perceived barriers), and study outcomes of adiposity (weight and waist circumference), diet (calories and diet quality), and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were used to perform moderated-mediation analyses among cohabitating (n = 25) versus non-cohabitating (n = 31) dyads. Results: The intervention was positively associated with dietary social support (path a₁: 0.36, 95% CI [0.083, 0.659]) and inversely associated with perceived dietary barriers (path a₁: − 10.57, 95% CI [− 19.109, − 3.091]) and perceived exercise barriers (path a₁: − 11.29, 95% CI [− 22.098, − 3.500]) among those who did not cohabitate (effects not observed among cohabitating pairs). The intervention’s mediating effects through perceived barriers on weight (indirect effect (ab): − 2.21, 95% CI [− 4.794, − 0.548]), waist circumference (ab: − 1.13, 95% CI [− 2.452, − 0.171]), caloric intake (ab: − 5.09 (2.86), 95% CI [− 12.602, − 0.709]), and self-reported MVPA (ab: 0.29 (0.18), 95% CI [0.019, 0.754]) also were stronger among non-cohabitating pairs. Conclusions: These findings suggest that social support partners outside the home substantially enhance intervention impact, though relationship quality and gender dynamics warrant further exploration. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04132219.

Despite well-documented global declines in physical activity (PA) during the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known regarding the specific impact among underserved, rural Alabama counties. This is concerning as this region was already disproportionately burdened by inactivity and related chronic diseases and was among the hardest hit by COVID-19. Thus, the current study examined the effect of COVID-19 on PA in four rural Alabama counties. An ancillary survey was administered between March 2020 and August 2021 to the first cohort (N = 171) of participants enrolled in a larger PA trial. Main outcomes of this survey included the perceived impact of COVID-19 on PA, leisure-time PA, and social cognitive theory (SCT) constructs at 3 months. Almost half of the participants reported being less active during the pandemic (49.7%) and endorsed that COVID-19 made PA more difficult (47.4%), citing concerns such as getting sick from exercising outside of the home (70.4%) and discomfort wearing a face mask while exercising (58%). Perceived COVID-19 impact on PA was significantly associated with education, household dependents, and gender (p’s < 0.05). More women, parents, and college graduates reported that the COVID-19 pandemic made PA more difficult. Overall, there were no significant associations between PA, SCT constructs, or perceived COVID-19 impact on PA scores at 3 months. While the pandemic made PA difficult for many participants, these barriers were not associated with leisure-time PA levels or related theoretical mechanisms of action, which bodes well for the success of our ongoing intervention efforts and the resiliency of these communities.