This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 08/58/02. The contractual start date was in June 2010. The draft report began editorial review in December 2015 and was accepted for publication in June 2016. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. © Queen's Printer a...

No abstract

The aim of this review was to explore the acceptability, opportunities, and challenges associated with wearable activity-monitoring technology to increase physical activity (PA) behavior in cancer survivors. A search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and SportDiscus was conducted from 1 January 2011 through 3 October 2022. The search was limited to English language, and peer-reviewed original research. Studies were included if they reported the use of an activity monitor in adults (+18 years) with a history of cancer with the intent to motivate PA behavior. Our search identified 1832 published articles, of which 28 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Eighteen of these studies included post-treatment cancer survivors, eight were on active cancer treatment, and two were long-term cancer survivor studies. ActiGraph accelerometers were the primary technology used to monitor PA behaviors, with Fitbit as the most commonly utilized self-monitoring wearable technology. Overall, wearable activity monitors were found to be an acceptable and useful tool in improving self-awareness, motivating behavioral change, and increasing PA levels. Self-monitoring wearable activity devices have a positive impact on short-term PA behaviors in cancer survivors, but the increase in PA gradually attenuated through the maintenance phase. Further study is needed to evaluate and increase the sustainability of the use of wearable technologies to support PA in cancer survivors.

Objectives We assessed the association of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) with the incidence of lung, breast, and urinary tract cancer in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Methods Our case-control study included 2315 cancers and 8501 age-sex–matched controls. Land-use regression was used to estimate TRAP concentrations. Logistic regression was used to assess cancer risk in relation to TRAP, adjusting for community social and material deprivation. Results There was no association between the risk of lung, breast, or urinary tract cancer in relation to TRAP. Lung cancer risk was significantly increased in the most deprived communities, whereas breast cancer risk was highest in the least deprived communities. Conclusions In a city characterized by low levels of ambient air pollution, there was no evidence of a linear increased lung, breast, or urinary tract cancer risk in relation to TRAP.

No abstract