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.

Accelerated functional decline is a concern among older cancer survivors that threatens independence and quality of life. Pilot studies suggest that vegetable gardening interventions ameliorate functional decline through improved diet and physical activity. The aim of this article was to describe the rationale, recruitment challenges, and enrollment for the Harvest for Health randomized controlled trial (RCT), which will test the impact of a home-based, vegetable gardening intervention on vegetable and fruit consumption, physical activity, and physical functioning among older cancer survivors. Modifications made to the intervention and assessments to assure safety and continuity of the RCT throughout the COVID-19 pandemic also are reported. Harvest for Health is a 2-year, 2-arm, single-blinded, wait-list controlled RCT with cross-over. Medicare-eligible survivors of cancers with ≥60% 5-year survival were recruited across Alabama from October 1, 2016 to February 8, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned to a wait-list control or a 1-year home-based gardening intervention and individually mentored by extension-certified master gardeners to cultivate spring, summer, and fall vegetable gardens. Although the RCT's primary end point was a composite measure of vegetable and fruit consumption, physical activity, and physical functioning, this article focuses on recruitment and modifications made to the intervention and assessments during COVID-19. χ² and t tests (α < .05) were used to compare enrolled vs unenrolled populations. Older cancer survivors (n = 9,708) were contacted via mail and telephone; 1,460 indicated interest (15% response rate), 473 were screened eligible and consented, and 381 completed baseline assessments and were randomized. Enrollees did not differ from nonrespondents/refusals by race and ethnicity, or rural-urban status, but comprised significantly higher numbers of comparatively younger survivors, those who were female, and survivors of breast cancer (P < .001). Although COVID-19 delayed trial completion, protocol modifications overcame this barrier and study completion is anticipated by June 2022. This RCT will provide evidence on the effects of a mentored vegetable gardening program among older cancer survivors. If efficacious, Harvest for Health represents a novel, multifaceted approach to improve lifestyle behaviors and health outcomes among cancer survivors-one with capacity for sustainability and widespread dissemination.

Cancer survivors, especially those who are older, experience increased comorbidity and risk for secondary cancers. A varied dietary pattern rich in vegetables and fruits (V&F) is recommended to improve health. However, V&F intake can differ by rural vs urban status. Our objective was to assess the differences in V&F consumption among older cancer survivors residing in urban- and rural-designated areas, and to explore whether differences exist according to sex, race, and cancer type. This was a cross-sectional secondary analysis. Screening data from the Harvest for Health trial were obtained from October 2016 to November 2019 on 731 Medicare-eligible cancer survivors across Alabama. V&F consumption was measured by 2 items from the National Cancer Institute’s dietary screener Eating at America’s Table. Rural and urban residence was coded at the ZIP-code level using the US Department of Agriculture’s Rural-Urban Commuting Area coding schema using 5 different classifications (A through E). Sex, race, and cancer type were dichotomized as male or female, non-Hispanic White or non-Hispanic Black, and gastrointestinal or other cancers, respectively. Kruskal-Wallis rank sum and post-hoc tests were performed to detect differences in V&F consumption (α < .05). The study sample was largely female (66.2%) and non-Hispanic White (78.1%); mean age was 70 years and reported average V&F intake was 1.47 cups/d. V&F consumption of cancer survivors living in isolated, small, rural towns was roughly one-half that consumed by survivors living elsewhere; thus, statistically significant rural–urban differences were found in models that accounted specifically for this subgroup, that is, Rural-Urban Commuting Area categorizations A and E. V&F consumption also was significantly lower in non-Hispanic Black (1.32 ± 0.98 cups/d) than non-Hispanic White survivors (1.51 ± 1.10 cups/d) (P = .0456); however, no statistically significant differences were detected by sex and cancer type. Analyses that address the variability within rural-designated areas are important in future studies. Moreover, a greater understanding is needed of factors that adversely affect V&F consumption of those most vulnerable, that is, older, non-Hispanic Black cancer survivors, as well as those living in isolated, small, rural towns to best target future interventions. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02985411.

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: To compare response rates to business letter versus greeting card invitations used to recruit older cancer survivors to a randomized controlled clinical trial of a lifestyle intervention Methods: Capitalizing upon recruitment efforts for a lifestyle intervention trial among older cancer survivors, we explored response rates to study invitations formatted as greeting cards versus standard business letters. Survivors were identified from cancer registries and medical records and randomly assigned with strata defined by gender and racial/ethnicity to one-of-the-two invitations. Both groups received telephone follow-up. Results: Contact was verified among 708 survivors with an average age of 72 years with most being non-Hispanic White (NHW), urban dwelling, and female. Survivors assigned to the business letter (n = 360) as compared to the greeting card (n = 348) were significantly more likely to express interest in participation (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.11–2.70). With the exception of racial/ethnic minorities (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.26–2.11), all other subgroups favored the business letter with significance observed in females (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.00–2.74), NHWs (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.29–3.49), and rural dwellers (OR 3.61; 95% CI 1.49–8.76). Moreover, the business letter costs were substantially lower than the card. Conclusion: Clinical trial recruitment is significantly more effective if solicitations are formatted as standard business letters as compared to greeting cards, though this may not generalize to racial/ethnic minorities where more research is warranted. Implications for Cancer Survivors: These study findings are not only valuable to researchers but also have the potential to improve recruitment and engagement of older cancer survivors in clinical trials. Clinical Trial Registration: Harvest for Health for in Older Cancer Survivors, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02985411