Search

Purpose: We examined the one-year test re-test reliability and validity criterion of survey-assessed sleep duration collected from two separate questions. Methods: The Activity Validation Sub Study included 751 participants of the Cancer Prevention Study-3 study to further investigate rest/activity cycles. Sleep duration was collected using three methods: survey, Daysimeter device, and sleep diary. Survey-assessed sleep duration was collected using 2 different questions, each with different response options (categorical and continuous). Selected participants (n = 170) were asked to wear a Daysimeter device for seven consecutive days for two non-consecutive quarters. Participants were excluded from the current study due to incomplete/implausible survey or device data or reported working night shift. We calculated reliability of pre- and post-survey sleep duration for both survey question using Spearman correlation. We used the method of triads to estimate the validity coefficient (VC) between the three sleep duration measurements in the present study and the "true" latent sleep duration measure, and bootstrapping methods to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: Of 119 participants included in the study (52.10% male), test-retest correlation showed strong and moderate correlations for sleep duration collected continuously and categorically, respectively. The VC for survey-assessed continuous sleep duration was 0.82 (95%CI 0.71, 0.90) for weekday and 0.68 (95%CI 0.46, 0.83) for weekend. Performance of the VC was slightly weaker for survey-assessed categorical sleep duration (weekday VC = 0.57 95%CI 0.42, 0.71; weekend VC = 0.47 95%CI 0.29, 0.62). Conclusion: The two survey-assessed sleep duration questions used in the AVSS and CPS-3 cohorts are valid approximations of sleep duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Performing physical activity may provide analgesic benefit, although this effect is more established for noncancer pain rather than cancer pain. The relationship between physical activity and pain outcomes in adults with and without a history of cancer was examined. Methods: Totals of 51,439 adults without a cancer history and 10,651 adults with a cancer history from the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort were included. Exposures included self‐reported moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) as well as 2‐year change in MVPA. Pain outcomes included pain intensity (primary outcome) and analgesic use (secondary outcome). Results: MVPA was inversely associated with pain intensity for adults with (odds ratio [OR], 0.84 [≥15 metabolic equivalent of task (MET) h/week vs. <7.5 MET h/week]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.93) and without (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75–0.82) a history of cancer. Compared to remaining inactive, participants who became sufficiently active (cancer: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68–0.86; no cancer: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69–0.77), became inactive (cancer: OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.88; no cancer: OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80–0.89), or remained sufficiently active (cancer: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60–0.72; no cancer: OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.60–0.65) also reported less pain. Physical activity was not related to analgesic use. Conclusions: The relationship between physical activity and pain intensity was not substantially different between people with and without a history of cancer. Cancer survivors who perform more activity, or who increase their activity, may experience less pain than cancer survivors who consistently perform less. Plain language summary: People who have had cancer often experience ongoing pain.Being physically active may help reduce the intensity of the pain they experience. This study examined physical activity and pain in people with and without a history of cancer. More physical activity was related to less pain in both groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Accurate assessment of eating-occasion behaviors, such as timing, frequency, and consumption intervals, is important for evaluating associations with obesity and other chronic diseases. Objectives The main objective of this study was to assess the relative validity of a 24-hour grid approach to assess eating-occasion timing and frequency in comparison to data derived from repeated 24-hour dietary recalls (DRs). A second objective was to assess the 1-year test-retest reproducibility of the 24-hour grid. Methods Between 2015 and 2016, 626 participants in the Cancer Prevention Study-3 (CPS-3) Diet Assessment Substudy (mean age, 52 years; age range, 31–70 years; 64% female; 64% non-Hispanic white, 22% non-Hispanic black, 14% Hispanic) completed 2 grids and up to 6 unannounced, telephone, interviewer-administered DRs over 1 year. Spearman correlations (ρ ; 95% CIs) were calculated to assess reproducibility between the repeated eating-occasion grid–derived variables (e.g., numbers of snacks and meals per day, timing of eating occasions) and to assess relative validity by comparing the meal grid and DR-derived summary data separately for weekdays and weekend days. Results Reproducibility correlations for eating-occasion variables derived from the eating-occasion grids completed 1 year apart were ≥0.5 for the majority of variables analyzed for both weekdays and weekend days, including numbers of snacks and meals per day and timing of the first and last eating occasions of the day. Relative validity was highest among weekday variables and was ≥0.5 for the majority of variables, with correlations ranging from ρ values of 0.32 (number of meals per day) to 0.68 (hour of the first eating occasion). Conclusions These findings suggest the eating-occasion grid used in CPS-3 has good reproducibility over 1 year and yields estimates comparable to those from a more detailed method of assessment of eating timing and frequency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]