Interventions to promote exercise in cancer survivors who report better levels of adherence share some common behaviour change techniques .
These involve setting programme goals , prompting practise and self-monitoring and encouraging participants to attempt to generalise behaviours learned in supervised exercise environments to other , non-supervised context s. However , expecting most sedentary survivors to achieve current guideline recommendations of at least 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise is likely to be unrealistic .
BACKGROUND The beneficial effects of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer are becoming apparent .
However , how to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary cancer cohorts is not as well understood .
A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet exercise recommendations .
Hence , review ing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following questions : Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance ?
What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions ?
Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers ?
Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term ( 12 months or longer ) exercise behaviour ?
What frequency of contact with exercise professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What theoretical basis is most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What behaviour change techniques are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
Direct improvement of quality of life using a tailored quality of life diagnosis and therapy pathway: randomised trial in 200 women with breast cancer
Background : Despite thous and s of papers , the value of quality of life ( QoL ) in curing disease remains uncertain . Until now , we lacked tools for the diagnosis and specific treatment of diseased QoL. We approached this problem stepwise by theory building , modelling , an exploratory trial and now a definitive r and omised controlled trial ( RCT ) in breast cancer , whose results we report here . Methods : In all , 200 representative Bavarian primary breast cancer patients were recruited by five hospitals and treated by 146 care professionals . Patients were r and omised to either ( 1 ) a novel care pathway including diagnosis of ‘ diseased ’ QoL ( any QoL measure below 50 points ) using a QoL profile and expert report sent to the patient 's coordinating practitioner , who arranged QoL therapy consisting of up to five st and ardised treatments for specific QoL defects or ( 2 ) st and ard postoperative care adhering to the German national guideline for breast cancer . The primary end point was the proportion of patients in each group with diseased QoL 6 months after surgery . Patients were blinded to their allocated group . Results : At 0 and 3 months after surgery , diseased QoL was diagnosed in 70 % of patients . The QoL pathway reduced rates of diseased QoL to 56 % at 6 months , especially in emotion and coping , compared with 71 % in controls ( P=0.048 ) . Relative risk reduction was 21 % ( 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) : 0–37 ) , absolute risk reduction 15 % ( 95 % CI : 0.3–29 ) , number needed to treat (NNT)=7 ( 95 % CI : 3–37 ) . When QoL therapy finished after successful treatment , diseased QoL often returned again , indicating good responsiveness of the QoL pathway . Conclusion : A three-component outcome system including clinician-derived objective , patient-reported subjective end points and qualitative analysis of clinical relevance was developed in the last 10 years for cancer as a complex intervention . A separate QoL pathway was implemented for the diagnosis and treatment of diseased QoL and its effectiveness tested in a community-based , pragmatic , definitive RCT . While the pathway was active , it was effective with an NNT of 7
Interventions to promote exercise in cancer survivors who report better levels of adherence share some common behaviour change techniques .
These involve setting programme goals , prompting practise and self-monitoring and encouraging participants to attempt to generalise behaviours learned in supervised exercise environments to other , non-supervised context s. However , expecting most sedentary survivors to achieve current guideline recommendations of at least 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise is likely to be unrealistic .
BACKGROUND The beneficial effects of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer are becoming apparent .
However , how to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary cancer cohorts is not as well understood .
A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet exercise recommendations .
Hence , review ing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following questions : Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance ?
What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions ?
Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers ?
Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term ( 12 months or longer ) exercise behaviour ?
What frequency of contact with exercise professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What theoretical basis is most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What behaviour change techniques are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?