Eric Martin1,2,3, Claudio Battaglini4,5, Beth Hands6, Fiona L Naumann7. 1. Department of Kinesiology, California State University-Monterey Bay, Seaside, CA, USA. ermartin@csumb.edu. 2. School of Health Sciences, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Australia. ermartin@csumb.edu. 3. , 100 Campus Center, Seaside, CA, 93955, USA. ermartin@csumb.edu. 4. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. Institute for Health Research, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Australia. 7. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to determine if exercise intensity impacts upon the psychosocial responses of breast and prostate cancer survivors to a rehabilitation program. METHODS:Eighty-seven prostate and 72 breast cancer survivors participated in an 8-week exercise and supportive group psychotherapy intervention (n = 84) or control (n = 75) group. Intervention participants were randomized to low-to-moderate intensity exercise (LIG; n = 44; 60-65 % VO2peak, 50-65 % one repetition maximum (1RM)) or moderate-to-high intensity exercise (HIG; n = 40; 75-80 % VO2peak, 65-80 % 1RM) while controls continued usual care. Before and after the 8 weeks, all participants completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast or -Prostate to assess quality of life (QOL) and Behavioural Regulations of Exercise Version 2 for exercise motivation. Intervention participants also completed a follow-up assessment 4 months post-intervention. RESULTS: All three groups improved in QOL from baseline to post-intervention, with no significant differences. From post-intervention to follow-up, the LIG and HIG similarly maintained QOL scores. Between baseline and post-intervention, both intervention arms improved their motivation to exercise compared to the controls (p = 0.004). At the 4-month follow-up, the HIG had maintained their overall exercise motivation (p < 0.001) and both domains of intrinsic motivation (identified regulation, p = 0.047; intrinsic regulation, p = 0.007); however, the LIG had regressed. CONCLUSIONS: The structured intervention was successful at improving autonomous exercise motivation, regardless of exercise intensity. However, only those participants who had exercised at a higher intensity sustained their improvement. Intervention participation did not improve QOL more than controls. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Higher-intensity exercise is more likely to result in more sustainable increases in motivation to exercise among cancer survivors.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to determine if exercise intensity impacts upon the psychosocial responses of breast and prostate cancer survivors to a rehabilitation program. METHODS: Eighty-seven prostate and 72 breast cancer survivors participated in an 8-week exercise and supportive group psychotherapy intervention (n = 84) or control (n = 75) group. Intervention participants were randomized to low-to-moderate intensity exercise (LIG; n = 44; 60-65 % VO2peak, 50-65 % one repetition maximum (1RM)) or moderate-to-high intensity exercise (HIG; n = 40; 75-80 % VO2peak, 65-80 % 1RM) while controls continued usual care. Before and after the 8 weeks, all participants completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast or -Prostate to assess quality of life (QOL) and Behavioural Regulations of Exercise Version 2 for exercise motivation. Intervention participants also completed a follow-up assessment 4 months post-intervention. RESULTS: All three groups improved in QOL from baseline to post-intervention, with no significant differences. From post-intervention to follow-up, the LIG and HIG similarly maintained QOL scores. Between baseline and post-intervention, both intervention arms improved their motivation to exercise compared to the controls (p = 0.004). At the 4-month follow-up, the HIG had maintained their overall exercise motivation (p < 0.001) and both domains of intrinsic motivation (identified regulation, p = 0.047; intrinsic regulation, p = 0.007); however, the LIG had regressed. CONCLUSIONS: The structured intervention was successful at improving autonomous exercise motivation, regardless of exercise intensity. However, only those participants who had exercised at a higher intensity sustained their improvement. Intervention participation did not improve QOL more than controls. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Higher-intensity exercise is more likely to result in more sustainable increases in motivation to exercise among cancer survivors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Exercise motivation; Exercise oncology; Prostate cancer; Quality of life
Authors: Helen M Milne; Karen E Wallman; Andrew Guilfoyle; Sandy Gordon; Kerry S Corneya Journal: J Sport Exerc Psychol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.016
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: Elise L Lev; Lucille Sanzero Eller; Glen Gejerman; John Kolassa; Joan Colella; Janine Pezzino; Patricia Lane; Ravi Munver; Michael Esposito; John Sheuch; Vincent Lanteri; Ihor Sawczuk Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-08-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Daniel Y T Fong; Judy W C Ho; Bryant P H Hui; Antoinette M Lee; Duncan J Macfarlane; Sharron S K Leung; Ester Cerin; Wynnie Y Y Chan; Ivy P F Leung; Sharon H S Lam; Aliki J Taylor; Kar-keung Cheng Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-01-30
Authors: Kirsten N Adlard; David G Jenkins; Chloe E Salisbury; Kate A Bolam; Sjaan R Gomersall; Joanne F Aitken; Suzanne K Chambers; Jeff C Dunn; Kerry S Courneya; Tina L Skinner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jennifer L Nicol; Carmel Woodrow; Brent J Cunningham; Peter Mollee; Nicholas Weber; Michelle D Smith; Andrew J Nicol; Louisa G Gordon; Michelle M Hill; Tina L Skinner Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 3.677