OBJECTIVES:Restorative yoga (RY) is a gentle type of yoga that may be beneficial for cancer patients and post-treatment survivors. Study goals were: to determine the feasibility of implementing a RY intervention for women with breast cancer; and to examine group differences in self-reported emotional, health-related quality of life, and symptom outcomes. METHODS:Women with breast cancer (n=44; mean age 55.8 years) enrolled in this study; 34% were actively undergoing cancer treatment. Study participants were randomized to the intervention (10 weekly 75-minute RY classes) or a waitlist control group. Participants completed questionnaires at Week 0 (baseline) and Week 10 (immediately post-intervention for the yoga group). RESULTS: Group differences favoring the yoga group were seen for mental health, depression, positive affect, and spirituality (peace/meaning). Significant baseline*group interactions were observed for negative affect and emotional well-being. Women with higher negative affect and lower emotional well-being at baseline derived greater benefit from the yoga intervention compared to those with similar values at baseline in the control group. The yoga group demonstrated a significant within-group improvement in fatigue; no significant difference was noted for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by sample size, these pilot data suggest potential benefit of RY on emotional outcomes and fatigue in cancer patients. This study demonstrates that a RY intervention is feasible for women with breast cancer; implications for study design and implementation are noted with an emphasis on program adoption and participant adherence. (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Restorative yoga (RY) is a gentle type of yoga that may be beneficial for cancerpatients and post-treatment survivors. Study goals were: to determine the feasibility of implementing a RY intervention for women with breast cancer; and to examine group differences in self-reported emotional, health-related quality of life, and symptom outcomes. METHODS:Women with breast cancer (n=44; mean age 55.8 years) enrolled in this study; 34% were actively undergoing cancer treatment. Study participants were randomized to the intervention (10 weekly 75-minute RY classes) or a waitlist control group. Participants completed questionnaires at Week 0 (baseline) and Week 10 (immediately post-intervention for the yoga group). RESULTS: Group differences favoring the yoga group were seen for mental health, depression, positive affect, and spirituality (peace/meaning). Significant baseline*group interactions were observed for negative affect and emotional well-being. Women with higher negative affect and lower emotional well-being at baseline derived greater benefit from the yoga intervention compared to those with similar values at baseline in the control group. The yoga group demonstrated a significant within-group improvement in fatigue; no significant difference was noted for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by sample size, these pilot data suggest potential benefit of RY on emotional outcomes and fatigue in cancerpatients. This study demonstrates that a RY intervention is feasible for women with breast cancer; implications for study design and implementation are noted with an emphasis on program adoption and participant adherence. (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: M J Brady; D F Cella; F Mo; A E Bonomi; D S Tulsky; S R Lloyd; S Deasy; M Cobleigh; G Shiomoto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alyson B Moadel; Chirag Shah; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Melanie S Harris; Sapana R Patel; Charles B Hall; Joseph A Sparano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R M Raghavendra; R Nagarathna; H R Nagendra; K S Gopinath; B S Srinath; B D Ravi; S Patil; B S Ramesh; R Nalini Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Daniel C Hughes; Nydia Darby; Krystle Gonzalez; Terri Boggess; Ruth M Morris; Amelie G Ramirez Journal: Physiother Theory Pract Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Suzanne C Danhauer; Elizabeth L Addington; Lorenzo Cohen; Stephanie J Sohl; Marieke Van Puymbroeck; Natalia K Albinati; S Nicole Culos-Reed Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Suzanne C Danhauer; Leah P Griffin; Nancy E Avis; Stephanie J Sohl; Michelle T Jesse; Elizabeth L Addington; Julia A Lawrence; Michael J Messino; Jeffrey K Giguere; Shantae L Lucas; Susan K Wiliford; Edward Shaw Journal: J Community Support Oncol Date: 2015-04
Authors: Patricia Gonzalez; Alicia Nuñez; Ming Wang-Letzkus; Jung-Won Lim; Katrina F Flores; Anna María Nápoles Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: F Siedentopf; I Utz-Billing; S Gairing; W Schoenegg; H Kentenich; I Kollak Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 508.702