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 ?
Randomized controlled trial of the effects of high intensity and low-to-moderate intensity exercise on physical fitness and fatigue in cancer survivors: results of the Resistance and Endurance exercise After ChemoTherapy (REACT) study
Background International evidence -based guidelines recommend physical exercise to form part of st and ard care for all cancer survivors . However , at present , the optimum exercise intensity is unclear . Therefore , we aim ed to evaluate the effectiveness of a high intensity ( HI ) and low-to-moderate intensity ( LMI ) resistance and endurance exercise program compared with a wait list control ( WLC ) group on physical fitness and fatigue in a mixed group of cancer survivors who completed primary cancer treatment , including chemotherapy . Methods Overall , 277 cancer survivors were r and omized to 12 weeks of  HI exercise ( n = 91 ) , LMI exercise ( n = 95 ) , or WLC ( n = 91 ) . Both interventions were identical with respect to exercise type , duration and frequency , and only differed in intensity . Measurements were performed at baseline ( 4–6 weeks after primary treatment ) and post-intervention . The primary outcomes were cardiorespiratory fitness ( peakVO2 ) , muscle strength ( grip strength and 30-second chair-st and test ) , and self-reported fatigue ( Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory ; MFI ) . Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life , physical activity , daily functioning , body composition , mood , and sleep disturbances . Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed to estimate intervention effects using an intention-to-treat principle . Results In the HI and LMI groups , 74 % and 70 % of the participants attended more than 80 % of the prescribed exercise sessions , respectively ( P = 0.53 ) . HI ( β = 2.2 ; 95 % CI , 1.2–3.1 ) and LMI ( β = 1.3 ; 95 % CI , 0.3–2.3 ) exercise showed significantly larger improvements in peakVO2 compared to WLC . Improvements in peakVO2 were larger for HI than LMI exercise ( β = 0.9 ; 95 % CI , −0.1 to 1.9 ) , but the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.08 ) . No intervention effects were found for grip strength and the 30-second chair-st and test . HI and LMI exercise significantly reduced general and physical fatigue and reduced activity ( MFI subscales ) compared to WLC , with no significant differences between both interventions . Finally , compared to WLC , we found benefits in global quality of life and anxiety after HI exercise , improved physical functioning after HI and LMI exercise , and less problems at work after LMI exercise . Conclusions Shortly after completion of cancer treatment , both HI and LMI exercise were safe and effective . There may be a dose – response relationship between exercise intensity and peakVO2 , favoring HI exercise . HI and LMI exercise were equally effective in reducing general and physical fatigue . Trial registration This study was registered at the Netherl and s Trial Register [ NTR2153 ] on the 5th of January 2010
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 ?