Sarah L Grimshaw1,2, Nicholas F Taylor1,3, Nora Shields1,4. 1. School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Allied Health Research Office, Eastern Health, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Allied Health, Northern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity may have benefits for children undergoing intense treatment for cancer, but such programmes are challenging to implement. This systematic review aimed to investigate the feasibly of physical activity interventions during intense cancer treatment for children and adolescents. PROCEDURE: A systematic search of seven electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Public/Publisher MEDLINE, Psychological Information Database, Sportsdiscuss, Excerpta Medica Database, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) from 2005 to August 2015 was completed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist and The Critical Review Form-Qualitative Studies. Results were summarised descriptively across eight domains of feasibility: acceptability, demand, implementation, adaptation, practicality, integration, expansion and limited efficiency testing (including effectiveness). RESULTS: Eleven quantitative studies and one qualitative study were identified for inclusion. Physical activity interventions were typically supervised, individualised programmes that prescribed a variety of activity types for hospital inpatients. There was evidence that physical activity interventions during the intense phase of cancer treatment were acceptable to parents and children, safe and successfully implemented. A trend of positive effects across all aspects of functioning was noted. Data were unavailable documenting feasibility for the domains of integration, adaptation and expansion. CONCLUSION: There is preliminary evidence that physical activity interventions are feasible, in that they are acceptable, safe and potentially beneficial for children with cancer but more work needs to be done to understand the most effective ways to implement these types of programmes.
BACKGROUND: Physical activity may have benefits for children undergoing intense treatment for cancer, but such programmes are challenging to implement. This systematic review aimed to investigate the feasibly of physical activity interventions during intense cancer treatment for children and adolescents. PROCEDURE: A systematic search of seven electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Public/Publisher MEDLINE, Psychological Information Database, Sportsdiscuss, Excerpta Medica Database, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) from 2005 to August 2015 was completed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist and The Critical Review Form-Qualitative Studies. Results were summarised descriptively across eight domains of feasibility: acceptability, demand, implementation, adaptation, practicality, integration, expansion and limited efficiency testing (including effectiveness). RESULTS: Eleven quantitative studies and one qualitative study were identified for inclusion. Physical activity interventions were typically supervised, individualised programmes that prescribed a variety of activity types for hospital inpatients. There was evidence that physical activity interventions during the intense phase of cancer treatment were acceptable to parents and children, safe and successfully implemented. A trend of positive effects across all aspects of functioning was noted. Data were unavailable documenting feasibility for the domains of integration, adaptation and expansion. CONCLUSION: There is preliminary evidence that physical activity interventions are feasible, in that they are acceptable, safe and potentially beneficial for children with cancer but more work needs to be done to understand the most effective ways to implement these types of programmes.
Authors: Mathieu Decock; Robin De Wilde; Ruth Van der Looven; Catharine Vander Linden Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Maxime Caru; Gabrielle Duhamel; Valérie Marcil; Serge Sultan; Caroline Meloche; Isabelle Bouchard; Simon Drouin; Laurence Bertout; Caroline Laverdiere; Daniel Sinnett; Daniel Curnier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Peter Schmidt-Andersen; Martin Kaj Fridh; Klaus Gottlob Müller; Lisa Lyngsie Hjalgrim; Avery D Faigenbaum; Kjeld Schmiegelow; Henrik Hasle; Sine Lykkedegn; He Zhang; Jan Christensen; Hanne Bækgaard Larsen Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Troels Thorsteinsson; Hanne Baekgaard Larsen; Kjeld Schmiegelow; Lone Friis Thing; Peter Krustrup; Mogens Theisen Pedersen; Karl Bang Christensen; Pernille Rudebeck Mogensen; Anne Sofie Helms; Lars Bo Andersen Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2017-05-12
Authors: Dieter Lemke; Hans-Werner Pledl; Markus Zorn; Manfred Jugold; Ed Green; Jonas Blaes; Sarah Löw; Anne Hertenstein; Martina Ott; Felix Sahm; Ann-Catherine Steffen; Markus Weiler; Frank Winkler; Michael Platten; Zhen Dong; Wolfgang Wick Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-08-30
Authors: Nyellisonn N N Lucena; Lecidamia C L Damascena; Isabella L A Ribeiro; Luiz M A Lima-Filho; Ana Maria G Valença Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Amanda Wurz; Emma McLaughlin; Conné Lategan; Carolina Chamorro Viña; Sarah L Grimshaw; Lotta Hamari; Miriam Götte; Sabine Kesting; Francesca Rossi; Patrick van der Torre; Gregory M T Guilcher; Krista McIntyre; S Nicole Culos-Reed Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-10-23 Impact factor: 3.046