(1) Background: Anthropometric and physical performance testing is commonly done in lifestyle research and is traditionally performed in-person. To expand the scalability of lifestyle interventions among cancer survivors, in-person assessments were adapted to remote means and evaluated for feasibility, safety, validity, and reliability. (2) Methods: Cancer survivors and supportive partners were approached to participate in three anthropometric and physical performance testing sessions (two remote/one in-person). Correlations, concordance, and differences between testing modes were evaluated. (3) Results: 110-of-112 individuals approached for testing participated (98% uptake); the sample was 78% female, 64% non-Hispanic White, of mean age 58 years and body mass index = 32.4 kg/m². ICCs for remote assessments ranged from moderate (8’ walk = 0.47), to strong (8’ get-up-and-go = 0.74), to very strong (30 s chair stand = 0.80; sit-and-reach = 0.86; 2 min step test = 0.87; back scratch = 0.90; weight = 0.93; waist circumference = 0.98) (p-values < 0.001). Perfect concordance (100%) was found for side-by-side and semi-tandem balance, and 87.5–90.3% for tandem balance. No significant differences between remote and in-person assessments were found for weight, 8’ walk, and 8’ get-up-and-go. No adverse events occurred and 75% indicated no preference or preferred virtual testing to in-person. (4) Conclusions: Remote anthropometric and physical performance assessments are reliable, valid, acceptable, and safe among cancer survivors and supportive partners.

Scalable, effective interventions are needed to address poor diet, insufficient physical activity, and obesity amongst rising numbers of cancer survivors. Interventions targeting survivors and their friends and family may promote both tertiary and primary prevention. The design, rationale, and enrollment of an ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT) (NCT04132219) to test a web-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors and their supportive partners are described, along with the characteristics of the sample recruited. This two-arm, single-blinded RCT randomly assigns 56 dyads (cancer survivor and partner, both with obesity, poor diets, and physical inactivity) to the six-month DUET intervention vs. wait-list control. Intervention delivery and assessment are remotely performed with 0–6 month, between-arm tests comparing body weight status (primary outcome), and secondary outcomes (waist circumference, health indices, and biomarkers of glucose homeostasis, lipid regulation and inflammation). Despite COVID-19, targeted accrual was achieved within 9 months. Not having Internet access was a rare exclusion (<2%). Inability to identify a support partner precluded enrollment of 42% of interested/eligible survivors. The enrolled sample is diverse: ages 23–81 and 38% racial/ethnic minorities. Results support the accessibility and appeal of web-based lifestyle interventions for cancer survivors, though some cancer survivors struggled to enlist support partners and may require alternative strategies.

(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.

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.

The authors would like to correct errors in their prior publication