PURPOSE: To determine the effects of breast cancer-specific print materials and step pedometers on physical activity (PA) and quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer survivors (N = 377) were randomly assigned to receive one of the following: a standard public health recommendation for PA, previously developed breast cancer-specific PA print materials, a step pedometer, or a combination of breast cancer-specific print materials and step pedometers. The primary outcome was self-reported moderate/vigorous PA minutes per week. Secondary outcomes were QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast), fatigue, self-reported brisk walking, and objective step counts. Assessments were conducted at baseline and postintervention (12 weeks). RESULTS:Attrition was 10.3% (39 of 377). On the basis of linear mixed-model analyses, PA increased by 30 minutes/week in the standard recommendation group compared with 70 minutes/week in the print material group (mean difference, 39 minutes/week; 95% CI = -10 to 89; d = 0.25; P = .117), 89 minutes/week in the pedometer group (mean difference, 59 minutes/week; 95% CI, 11 to 108; d = 0.38; P = .017), and 87 minutes/week in the combined group (mean difference, 57 minutes/week; 95% CI, 8 to 106; d = 0.37; P = .022). For brisk walking minutes/week, all three intervention groups reported significantly greater increases than the standard recommendation group. The combined group also reported significantly improved QoL (mean difference, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 9.6; d = 0.33; P = .003) and reduced fatigue (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.0 to 4.7; d = 0.25; P = .052) compared with the standard recommendation group. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer-specific PA print materials and pedometers may be effective strategies for increasing PA and QoL in breast cancer survivors. A combined approach appears to be optimal. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00221221
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine the effects of breast cancer-specific print materials and step pedometers on physical activity (PA) and quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer survivors (N = 377) were randomly assigned to receive one of the following: a standard public health recommendation for PA, previously developed breast cancer-specific PA print materials, a step pedometer, or a combination of breast cancer-specific print materials and step pedometers. The primary outcome was self-reported moderate/vigorous PA minutes per week. Secondary outcomes were QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast), fatigue, self-reported brisk walking, and objective step counts. Assessments were conducted at baseline and postintervention (12 weeks). RESULTS: Attrition was 10.3% (39 of 377). On the basis of linear mixed-model analyses, PA increased by 30 minutes/week in the standard recommendation group compared with 70 minutes/week in the print material group (mean difference, 39 minutes/week; 95% CI = -10 to 89; d = 0.25; P = .117), 89 minutes/week in the pedometer group (mean difference, 59 minutes/week; 95% CI, 11 to 108; d = 0.38; P = .017), and 87 minutes/week in the combined group (mean difference, 57 minutes/week; 95% CI, 8 to 106; d = 0.37; P = .022). For brisk walking minutes/week, all three intervention groups reported significantly greater increases than the standard recommendation group. The combined group also reported significantly improved QoL (mean difference, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 9.6; d = 0.33; P = .003) and reduced fatigue (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.0 to 4.7; d = 0.25; P = .052) compared with the standard recommendation group. CONCLUSION:Breast cancer-specific PA print materials and pedometers may be effective strategies for increasing PA and QoL in breast cancer survivors. A combined approach appears to be optimal. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00221221
Authors: Linda Trinh; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Ryan E Rhodes; Scott North; Kerry S Courneya Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Cynthia A Thomson; Tracy E Crane; Austin Miller; David O Garcia; Karen Basen-Engquist; David S Alberts Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Charissa F Andreotti; Kailey E Roberts; Rebecca M Saracino; Marisol Hernandez; Ethan Basch Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Pantea Amin Javaheri; Cheryl Nekolaichuk; Robert Haennel; Matthew B Parliament; Margaret L McNeely Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Ann M Berger; Kathi Mooney; Amy Alvarez-Perez; William S Breitbart; Kristen M Carpenter; David Cella; Charles Cleeland; Efrat Dotan; Mario A Eisenberger; Carmen P Escalante; Paul B Jacobsen; Catherine Jankowski; Thomas LeBlanc; Jennifer A Ligibel; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Belinda Mandrell; Barbara A Murphy; Oxana Palesh; William F Pirl; Steven C Plaxe; Michelle B Riba; Hope S Rugo; Carolina Salvador; Lynne I Wagner; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Finly J Zachariah; Mary Anne Bergman; Courtney Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Linda Neuhauser; Beccah Rothschild; Carrie Graham; Susan L Ivey; Susana Konishi Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308