Hatchett 2013.

Methods	Study design: single‐centre RCT Number randomised: 87; 43 to intervention, 42 to control Study start: not stated; stop date: not stated Length of intervention: 12 weeks Length of follow‐up: to end of intervention Country: USA
Participants	Data available only for those who completed the study Age, years (mean SD): Intervention: not reported Control: not reported Stage, n (%): Intervention: stage I, 10 (36); stage II, 17 (47); stage III, 6 (17); stage IV, 3 (8) Control: stage I, 14 (37); stage II, 17 (45); stage III, 5 (13); stage IV, 2 (5) Inclusion criteria: • Female breast cancer survivors • Completion of cancer treatment • 18 years of age or older • Ability to access and navigate the Internet • Ability to communicate through email • Ability to complete online questionnaires • No current physical activity reported at the outset of the intervention • Ability to engage in physical activity safely
Interventions	43 participants assigned to exercise intervention: Participants assigned to the 12‐week intervention group received a weekly email message for the first 5 weeks of the intervention followed by email messages every other week for the next 6 weeks of the intervention. These messages were designed to influence social cognitive theory (SCT) variables of interest to enhance participants’ physical activity. Participants were offered access to an e‐counsellor, who offered advice regarding exercise and physical activity. General exercise recommendations for cancer rehabilitation established by the Rocky Mountain Cancer Rehabilitation Institute were used to craft exercise prescriptions. Components of the exercise prescription for patients with cancer are the same as those recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine. Adherence: For the treatment group, investigators reported 2.81 (SD 2.11) days of exercise per week at 6 weeks and 3.47 (SD 2.19) days of exercise per week at 12 weeks. 42 participants assigned to control: Control group did not receive email messages, nor did they have access to an e‐counsellor. At the end of 12 weeks, those assigned to the control group were offered the opportunity to participate in the intervention.
Outcomes	Outcomes: 7‐DPAR used as the physical activity measure Self‐regulation measured on a 20‐item, 5‐point Likert‐type instrument (1 = never; 5 =most frequent). Self‐regulation instrument contains 5 subscales: (1) self‐monitoring, (2) cognitive goal setting, (3) social support, (4) reinforcements, and (5) relapse prevention. Exercise self‐efficacy measured via a 14‐item questionnaire. Responses to items are summed and divided by 14 for a mean self‐efficacy score. The higher the score on the self‐efficacy instrument, the greater is one’s confidence to overcome barriers to exercise. Exercise role identity measured by a 9‐item, 5‐point Likert‐type instrument developed by Anderson and Cychosz. Possible minimum and maximum values of scores are 0to 45. Higher score indicates strong self‐identity as an exerciser. Outcome expectancy value assessed with a 19‐item self‐report questionnaire developed by Steinhardt and Dishman Numbers of participants assessed: Intervention: baseline, 43; at 6 and 8 weeks, 36 Control: baseline, 42; at 6 and 8 weeks, 38 Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Trial registration link: none available Trial authors contacted: no Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no Funding: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	“Randomly assigned”; method of randomisation not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Whether allocation was concealed was not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to conceal allocation to the intervention from participants.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding of outcome assessments was not described.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	“The final sample included 74 participants (control group n = 38, intervention group n = 36)”. Participants who dropped out were not included in analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No selective reporting of outcomes is apparent.
Other bias	Low risk	Trial appears to be free of other problems that could put it at high risk of bias.