Eileen Danaher Hacker1, Maral Mjukian2. 1. University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing (M/C 802), Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, 845 S. Damen Avenue, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. Electronic address: ehacker@uic.edu. 2. University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing (M/C 802), Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, 845 S. Damen Avenue, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Implementing exercise programs in people receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by bone marrow (BMT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) presents unique challenges. This review examines subject attrition rates and reasons for attrition as well as adherence to exercise interventions following BMT/SCT. METHODS: Studies published between January 1985 and December 2012 that prospectively tested an exercise intervention following BMT or SCT were included in the review. Evaluation criteria included: (1) exercise modality; (2) the amount of supervision required to implement the intervention; (3) timing of the intervention; (4) subject attrition rates and reasons for attrition; and (5) exercise adherence rates. RESULTS: Of the 20 studies reviewed, most tested an aerobic exercise intervention or a combination of aerobic and strength training. Supervised exercise sessions were more commonly used than unsupervised sessions. The overall attrition rate was 18% for the 998 subjects enrolled in the studies. Major reasons for attrition included death, change in health status, protocol issues, personal issues with subjects, and lost to follow-up/no reason provided. Authors of supervised exercise programs rarely published exercise adherence information. Unsupervised exercise programs relied mainly on self-report to document adherence. CONCLUSION: Exercise research following BMT/SCT is becoming more sophisticated as researchers build upon the expanding literature base. Questions regarding subject attrition and adherence to exercise interventions must be addressed to identify interventions that are likely to be successful when translated into clinical practice. Subject attrition from exercise studies following BMT/SCT is relatively low. Adherence information for exercise interventions needs to be regularly addressed.
PURPOSE: Implementing exercise programs in people receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by bone marrow (BMT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) presents unique challenges. This review examines subject attrition rates and reasons for attrition as well as adherence to exercise interventions following BMT/SCT. METHODS: Studies published between January 1985 and December 2012 that prospectively tested an exercise intervention following BMT or SCT were included in the review. Evaluation criteria included: (1) exercise modality; (2) the amount of supervision required to implement the intervention; (3) timing of the intervention; (4) subject attrition rates and reasons for attrition; and (5) exercise adherence rates. RESULTS: Of the 20 studies reviewed, most tested an aerobic exercise intervention or a combination of aerobic and strength training. Supervised exercise sessions were more commonly used than unsupervised sessions. The overall attrition rate was 18% for the 998 subjects enrolled in the studies. Major reasons for attrition included death, change in health status, protocol issues, personal issues with subjects, and lost to follow-up/no reason provided. Authors of supervised exercise programs rarely published exercise adherence information. Unsupervised exercise programs relied mainly on self-report to document adherence. CONCLUSION: Exercise research following BMT/SCT is becoming more sophisticated as researchers build upon the expanding literature base. Questions regarding subject attrition and adherence to exercise interventions must be addressed to identify interventions that are likely to be successful when translated into clinical practice. Subject attrition from exercise studies following BMT/SCT is relatively low. Adherence information for exercise interventions needs to be regularly addressed.
Authors: Michael Mendes Wefelnberg; Timo Niels; Udo Holtick; Franziska Jundt; Christoph Scheid; Freerk T Baumann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Rea Kuehl; Martina E Schmidt; Peter Dreger; Karen Steindorf; Martin Bohus; Joachim Wiskemann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Erica Morales-Rodriguez; Txomin Pérez-Bilbao; Alejandro F San Juan; Jorge Lorenzo Calvo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Saskia Persoon; Mai J M ChinAPaw; Laurien M Buffart; Roberto D K Liu; Pierre Wijermans; Harry R Koene; Monique C Minnema; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Erik W A Marijt; Johannes Brug; Frans Nollet; Marie José Kersten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel Santa Mina; Lianne B Dolan; Jeffrey H Lipton; Darren Au; Encarna Camacho Pérez; Alyssa Franzese; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Jennifer M Jones; Eugene Chang Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-06-14 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Shaza Abo; David Ritchie; Linda Denehy; Yvonne Panek-Hudson; Louis Irving; Catherine L Granger Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 5.174