Camille E Short1,2, Erica L James2, Afaf Girgis3, Mario I D'Souza4, Ronald C Plotnikoff5. 1. School of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia. 2. School of Medicine and Public Health, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia. 3. Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Australia. 4. Clinical Trials Unit, Hunter Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia. 5. School of Education, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation in physical activity can improve the health outcomes of breast cancer survivors. To impact public health, broad-reaching sustainable interventions that promote physical activity are needed. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of two distance-based interventions for promoting physical activity among breast cancer survivors compared with a standard recommendation control. METHODS:Breast cancer survivors who had finished 'active' cancer treatment were eligible to participate. Participants (n = 330) were randomly assigned to receive one of the following mail-delivered interventions: three computer-tailored newsletters, a previously developed breast cancer-specific physical activity booklet or a pamphlet detailing the public health recommendations for physical activity (control). Primary outcomes were self-reported moderate to vigorous aerobic activity and participant's self-reported resistance training activity at 4 months post-baseline. Secondary outcomes were pedometer step counts, whether or not participants were meeting the physical activity guidelines, time spent in sedentary behaviour, fatigue and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Participants randomised into the tailored-print intervention group were three times more likely to commence resistance training and meet the resistance-training guidelines immediately after the intervention than participants allocated to the control group. There were no other significant intervention effects. CONCLUSION:Computer-tailored newsletters may be an effective strategy for enhancing resistance-based physical activity among breast cancer survivors. The null findings relating to other outcomes may be due to ceiling effects (in the case of aerobic activity, fatigue and health-related quality of life) or the sensitivity of the measure used (in the case of sitting time). These issues require further exploration.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Participation in physical activity can improve the health outcomes of breast cancer survivors. To impact public health, broad-reaching sustainable interventions that promote physical activity are needed. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of two distance-based interventions for promoting physical activity among breast cancer survivors compared with a standard recommendation control. METHODS:Breast cancer survivors who had finished 'active' cancer treatment were eligible to participate. Participants (n = 330) were randomly assigned to receive one of the following mail-delivered interventions: three computer-tailored newsletters, a previously developed breast cancer-specific physical activity booklet or a pamphlet detailing the public health recommendations for physical activity (control). Primary outcomes were self-reported moderate to vigorous aerobic activity and participant's self-reported resistance training activity at 4 months post-baseline. Secondary outcomes were pedometer step counts, whether or not participants were meeting the physical activity guidelines, time spent in sedentary behaviour, fatigue and health-related quality of life. RESULTS:Participants randomised into the tailored-print intervention group were three times more likely to commence resistance training and meet the resistance-training guidelines immediately after the intervention than participants allocated to the control group. There were no other significant intervention effects. CONCLUSION: Computer-tailored newsletters may be an effective strategy for enhancing resistance-based physical activity among breast cancer survivors. The null findings relating to other outcomes may be due to ceiling effects (in the case of aerobic activity, fatigue and health-related quality of life) or the sensitivity of the measure used (in the case of sitting time). These issues require further exploration.
Authors: C E Short; A Rebar; E L James; M J Duncan; K S Courneya; R C Plotnikoff; R Crutzen; C Vandelanotte Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-08-06 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: C E Short; E L James; A L Rebar; M J Duncan; K S Courneya; R C Plotnikoff; R Crutzen; N Bidargaddi; C Vandelanotte Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Laura Q Rogers; Kerry S Courneya; Philip M Anton; Steven Verhulst; Sandra K Vicari; Randall S Robbs; Edward McAuley Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Susan T Vadaparampil; Juliette Christie; Kristine A Donovan; Jongphil Kim; Bianca Augusto; Monica L Kasting; Cheryl L Holt; Kimlin Ashing; Chanita Hughes Halbert; Tuya Pal Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Laurien M Buffart; Maike G Sweegers; Anne M May; Mai J Chinapaw; Jonna K van Vulpen; Rob U Newton; Daniel A Galvão; Neil K Aaronson; Martijn M Stuiver; Paul B Jacobsen; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Karen Steindorf; Melinda L Irwin; Sandi Hayes; Kathleen A Griffith; Alejandro Lucia; Fernando Herrero-Roman; Ilse Mesters; Ellen van Weert; Hans Knoop; Martine M Goedendorp; Nanette Mutrie; Amanda J Daley; Alex McConnachie; Martin Bohus; Lene Thorsen; Karl-Heinz Schulz; Camille E Short; Erica L James; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Gill Arbane; Martina E Schmidt; Karin Potthoff; Marc van Beurden; Hester S Oldenburg; Gabe S Sonke; Wim H van Harten; Rachel Garrod; Kathryn H Schmitz; Kerri M Winters-Stone; Miranda J Velthuis; Dennis R Taaffe; Willem van Mechelen; Marie José Kersten; Frans Nollet; Jennifer Wenzel; Joachim Wiskemann; Johannes Brug; Kerry S Courneya Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jonna K VAN Vulpen; Maike G Sweegers; Petra H M Peeters; Kerry S Courneya; Robert U Newton; Neil K Aaronson; Paul B Jacobsen; Daniel A Galvão; Mai J Chinapaw; Karen Steindorf; Melinda L Irwin; Martijn M Stuiver; Sandi Hayes; Kathleen A Griffith; Ilse Mesters; Hans Knoop; Martine M Goedendorp; Nanette Mutrie; Amanda J Daley; Alex McConnachie; Martin Bohus; Lene Thorsen; Karl-Heinz Schulz; Camille E Short; Erica L James; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Martina E Schmidt; Cornelia M Ulrich; Marc VAN Beurden; Hester S Oldenburg; Gabe S Sonke; Wim H VAN Harten; Kathryn H Schmitz; Kerri M Winters-Stone; Miranda J Velthuis; Dennis R Taaffe; Willem VAN Mechelen; Marie José Kersten; Frans Nollet; Jennifer Wenzel; Joachim Wiskemann; Irma M Verdonck-DE Leeuw; Johannes Brug; Anne M May; Laurien M Buffart Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2020-02
Authors: Rebecca R Turner; Liz Steed; Helen Quirk; Rosa U Greasley; John M Saxton; Stephanie Jc Taylor; Derek J Rosario; Mohamed A Thaha; Liam Bourke Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-09-19
Authors: Caroline S Kampshoff; Fiona Stacey; Camille E Short; Willem van Mechelen; Mai Jm Chinapaw; Johannes Brug; Ronald Plotnikoff; Erica L James; Laurien M Buffart Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-12 Impact factor: 3.603