Maria C Swartz1, Zakkoyya H Lewis2, Elizabeth J Lyons3, Kristofer Jennings4, Addie Middleton5, Rachel R Deer6, Demi Arnold3, Kaitlin Dresser3, Kenneth J Ottenbacher5, James S Goodwin7. 1. Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. Electronic address: mcswartz@utmb.edu. 2. Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX; Fitness & Nutrition Results, Beachbody, Santa Monica, CA. 3. Department of Nutrition and Metabolism, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 4. Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 5. Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 6. Sealy Center on Aging, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 7. Division of Geriatric Medicine, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of home- and community-based physical activity interventions on physical functioning among cancer survivors based on the most prevalent physical function measures, randomized trials were reviewed. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases-Medline Ovid, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO-were searched from inception to March 2016 for relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Search terms included community-based interventions, physical functioning, and cancer survivors. A reference librarian trained in systematic reviews conducted the final search. DATA EXTRACTION: Four reviewers evaluated eligibility and 2 reviewers evaluated methodological quality. Data were abstracted from studies that used the most prevalent physical function measurement tools-Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, and 6-minute walk test. Random- or fixed-effects models were conducted to obtain overall effect size per physical function measure. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria and were used to compute standardized mean differences using the inverse variance statistical method. The median sample size was 83 participants. Most of the studies (n=7) were conducted among breast cancer survivors. The interventions produced short-term positive effects on physical functioning, with overall effect sizes ranging from small (.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], .07-.27) to medium (.45; 95% CI, .23-.67). Community-based interventions that met in groups and used behavioral change strategies produced the largest effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Home and community-based physical activity interventions may be a potential tool to combat functional deterioration among aging cancer survivors. More studies are needed among other cancer types using clinically relevant objective functional measures (eg, gait speed) to accelerate translation into the community and clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of home- and community-based physical activity interventions on physical functioning among cancer survivors based on the most prevalent physical function measures, randomized trials were reviewed. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases-Medline Ovid, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO-were searched from inception to March 2016 for relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Search terms included community-based interventions, physical functioning, and cancer survivors. A reference librarian trained in systematic reviews conducted the final search. DATA EXTRACTION: Four reviewers evaluated eligibility and 2 reviewers evaluated methodological quality. Data were abstracted from studies that used the most prevalent physical function measurement tools-Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, and 6-minute walk test. Random- or fixed-effects models were conducted to obtain overall effect size per physical function measure. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria and were used to compute standardized mean differences using the inverse variance statistical method. The median sample size was 83 participants. Most of the studies (n=7) were conducted among breast cancer survivors. The interventions produced short-term positive effects on physical functioning, with overall effect sizes ranging from small (.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], .07-.27) to medium (.45; 95% CI, .23-.67). Community-based interventions that met in groups and used behavioral change strategies produced the largest effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Home and community-based physical activity interventions may be a potential tool to combat functional deterioration among aging cancer survivors. More studies are needed among other cancer types using clinically relevant objective functional measures (eg, gait speed) to accelerate translation into the community and clinical practice.
Authors: Amy A Kirkham; Sarah E Neil-Sztramko; Joanne Morgan; Sara Hodson; Sarah Weller; Tasha McRae; Kristin L Campbell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-01-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jennifer A Ligibel; Ann Partridge; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Nancy Campbell; Laura Shockro; Taylor Salinardi; Taylor Salinardri; Eric P Winer Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Elizabeth C Clipp; Miriam C Morey; Carl F Pieper; Richard Sloane; Denise Clutter Snyder; Harvey J Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Mallory G Cases; Cindy K Blair; Peter S Hendricks; Kerry Smith; Scott Snyder; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: D Santa Mina; C M Sabiston; D Au; A J Fong; L C Capozzi; D Langelier; M Chasen; J Chiarotto; J R Tomasone; J M Jones; E Chang; S N Culos-Reed Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Linda F Wang; Yvonne L Eaglehouse; Janette T Poppenberg; Jill W Brufsky; Emily M Geramita; Shuyan Zhai; Kelliann K Davis; Bethany Barone Gibbs; Jason Metz; G J van Londen Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Kelley R Covington; Timothy Marshall; Grace Campbell; Grant R Williams; Jack B Fu; Tiffany D Kendig; Nancy Howe; Catherine M Alfano; Mackenzi Pergolotti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ursela Christopherson; Stephanie J Wells; Nathan Parker; Elizabeth J Lyons; Michael D Swartz; Anna Blozinski; Karen Basen-Engquist; Susan Peterson; Maria C Swartz Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Jordan T Lee; Chad W Wagoner; Stephanie A Sullivan; Dean J Amatuli; Kirsten A Nyrop; Erik D Hanson; Lee Stoner; Brian C Jensen; Hyman B Muss; Claudio L Battaglini Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-24