Miriam C Morey1,2,3, Cindy K Blair4,5, Richard Sloane1, Harvey Jay Cohen1,2, Denise C Snyder6, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried7,8,9. 1. Center for the Study of Aging/Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 5. University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 6. School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 8. Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 9. Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of older cancer survivors is increasing as more adults survive to older ages. The objectives of this study were to examine trajectories of physical activity (PA) and physical function (PF) over a 2-year lifestyle counseling study and to identify characteristics of the trajectory groups. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of Reach Out to Enhance Wellness, a randomized controlled trial of home-based lifestyle counseling. The 641 participants were older (≥65 years), overweight (body mass index [BMI], 25 to <40 kg/m(2)), long-term community-dwelling survivors (>5 years) of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States (21 states) who had been randomly assigned to animmediate intervention or a 12-month-wait-listed control arm. The main outcome measures were PA and PF trajectory group membership. RESULTS: Three PA groups and 5 PF trajectory groups were observed. The baseline BMI (P < .001) and self-efficacy for performing strength (P < .0001) and endurance exercises (P < .0002) were the strongest predictors of achieving the highest amount of PA and the most favorable functional trajectory over 2 years. Individuals with low baseline self-efficacy, no PA, and a Short Form 36 PF subscale score < 65 did not benefit from the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified characteristics of survivors who benefited from home-based interventions and suggested alternative approaches for survivors requiring more structured and intensive interventions to promote behavioral changes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The number of older cancer survivors is increasing as more adults survive to older ages. The objectives of this study were to examine trajectories of physical activity (PA) and physical function (PF) over a 2-year lifestyle counseling study and to identify characteristics of the trajectory groups. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of Reach Out to Enhance Wellness, a randomized controlled trial of home-based lifestyle counseling. The 641 participants were older (≥65 years), overweight (body mass index [BMI], 25 to <40 kg/m(2)), long-term community-dwelling survivors (>5 years) of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States (21 states) who had been randomly assigned to an immediate intervention or a 12-month-wait-listed control arm. The main outcome measures were PA and PF trajectory group membership. RESULTS: Three PA groups and 5 PF trajectory groups were observed. The baseline BMI (P < .001) and self-efficacy for performing strength (P < .0001) and endurance exercises (P < .0002) were the strongest predictors of achieving the highest amount of PA and the most favorable functional trajectory over 2 years. Individuals with low baseline self-efficacy, no PA, and a Short Form 36 PF subscale score < 65 did not benefit from the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified characteristics of survivors who benefited from home-based interventions and suggested alternative approaches for survivors requiring more structured and intensive interventions to promote behavioral changes.
Authors: Carla Parry; Erin E Kent; Angela B Mariotto; Catherine M Alfano; Julia H Rowland Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Allison J Ottenbacher; R Sue Day; Wendell C Taylor; Shreela V Sharma; Richard Sloane; Denise C Snyder; Isaac M Lipkus; Lee W Jones; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Isaac Lipkus; Richard Sloane; Denise C Snyder; David F Lobach; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Paul D Loprinzi; Bradley J Cardinal; Qi Si; Jill A Bennett; Kerri M Winters-Stone Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-01-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: L Bourke; K E Homer; M A Thaha; L Steed; D J Rosario; K A Robb; J M Saxton; S J C Taylor Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Liam Bourke; Kate E Homer; Mohamed A Thaha; Liz Steed; Derek J Rosario; Karen A Robb; John M Saxton; Stephanie J C Taylor Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-09-24
Authors: Christine Miaskowski; Melisa L Wong; Bruce A Cooper; Judy Mastick; Steven M Paul; Katherine Possin; Michael Steinman; Janine Cataldo; Laura B Dunn; Christine Ritchie Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Deborah K Mayer; Gina Landucci; Lola Awoyinka; Amy K Atwood; Cindy L Carmack; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Fiona McTavish; David H Gustafson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Chloe Grimmett; Teresa Corbett; Jennifer Brunet; Jonathan Shepherd; Bernardine M Pinto; Carl R May; Claire Foster Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 6.457