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 ?
Physical activity for men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: benefits from a 16-week intervention
Goals of workProstate cancer patients receiving and rogen deprivation therapy ( ADT )  are vulnerable to a number of potentially debilitating side effects , which can significantly impact quality of life . The role of alternate therapies , such as physical activity ( PA ) , in attenuating these side effects is largely understudied for such a large population . Thus , the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of PA intervention for men receiving ADT on PA behavior , quality of life , and fitness measures . Patients and methods One hundred participants were r and omized into an intervention ( n = 53 ) or a wait-list control group ( n = 47 ) , with 11 dropping out of the intervention group and 23 dropping out of the wait-list control group prior to post-testing . The intervention consisted of both an individually tailored home-based aerobic and light resistant training program and weekly group sessions .  PA , quality of life , fitness , and physiological outcomes were assessed pre and post the 16-week intervention . Results Significant increases in PA , supported by changes in girth measures and blood pressure , support the beneficial impact of the intervention . Positive trends were also evident for depression and fatigue . However , due to the high dropout rate , these results must be interpreted with caution . Conclusions PA effectively attenuates many of the side effects of ADT and should be recommended to prostate survivors as an alternate therapy . Determining the maintenance of this behavior change will be important for underst and ing how the long-term benefits of increased activity levels may alleviate the late effects of ADT
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 ?