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 ?
Design and implementation of the Exercise for Health trial -- a pragmatic exercise intervention for women with breast cancer.
BACKGROUND Exercise for Health was a pragmatic , r and omised , controlled trial comparing the effect of an eight-month exercise intervention on function , treatment-related side effects and quality of life following breast cancer , compared with usual care . The intervention commenced six weeks post-surgery , and two modes of delivering the same intervention was compared with usual care . The purpose of this paper is to describe the study design , along with outcomes related to recruitment , retention and representativeness , and intervention participation . METHODS Women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and residing in a major metropolitan city of Queensl and , Australia , were eligible to participate . Consenting women were r and omised to a face-to-face-delivered exercise group  ( FtF , n = 67 ) , telephone-delivered exercise group ( Tel , n = 67 ) or usual care group ( UC , n = 60 ) and were assessed pre-intervention ( 5-weeks post-surgery ) , mid-intervention ( 6 months post-surgery ) and 10 weeks post-intervention ( 12 months post-surgery ) . Each intervention arm entailed 16 sessions with an Exercise Physiologist . RESULTS Of 318 potentially eligible women , 63 % ( n = 200 ) agreed to participate , with a 12-month retention rate of 93 % . Participants were similar to the Queensl and breast cancer population with respect to disease characteristics , and the r and omisation procedure was mostly successful at attaining group balance , with the few minor imbalances observed unlikely to influence intervention effects given balance in other related characteristics . Median participation was 14 ( min and max : 0 and 16 ) and 13 ( min and max : 3 and 16 ) intervention sessions for the FtF and Tel , respectively , with 68 % of those in Tel and 82 % in FtF participating in at least 75 % of sessions . DISCUSSION Participation in both intervention arms during and following treatment for breast cancer was feasible and acceptable to women . Future work , design ed to inform translation into practice , will evaluate the quality of life , clinical , psychosocial and behavioural outcomes associated with each mode of delivery
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 ?