Mario Lozano-Lozano1, Lydia Martín-Martín1, Noelia Galiano-Castillo2, Carolina Fernández-Lao1, Irene Cantarero-Villanueva1, Isabel B López-Barajas3, Manuel Arroyo-Morales1. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Granada, Avda. de la Ilustración, 60, 18016 Granada, Spain; Sport and Health Joint University Institute (iMUDS), Granada, Spain; Biohealth Research Institute in Granada (ibs.GRANADA), Granada, Spain; "Cuídate" Support Unit for Oncology Patients (UAPO-Cuídate), Granada, Spain. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Granada, Avda. de la Ilustración, 60, 18016 Granada, Spain; Sport and Health Joint University Institute (iMUDS), Granada, Spain; Biohealth Research Institute in Granada (ibs.GRANADA), Granada, Spain; "Cuídate" Support Unit for Oncology Patients (UAPO-Cuídate), Granada, Spain. Electronic address: noeliagaliano@ugr.es. 3. "San Cecilio" University Hospital, Oncology Unit, Granada, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Survival rates in cancer are increasing exponentially, with a corresponding increase/influence in disability-adjusted life-years. Efforts should be made to explore the optimal balance between unsupervised/distance-based and supervised/onsite approaches to cancer care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the BENECA mobile Health (mHealth) lifestyle application combined with a supervised rehabilitation program (BENECA and supervised rehabilitation) versus the BENECA mHealth lifestyle application alone on quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes of breast cancer survivors. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 80 survivors of breast cancer diagnosed at stage I-IIIA, who completed adjuvant therapy and were overweight or obese at diagnosis. Participants were randomly allocated (ratio 1:1, 3 waves) to BENECA mHealth and rehabilitation for 2months (n=40) or BENECA mHealth and usual care (BENECA mHealth alone; n=40). Participants completed a questionnaire at baseline (T1), 8-weeks post-intervention (T2) and 6-month follow-up (T3). The primary outcome was QoL assessed with the EORT QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes included upper-limb functionality and body composition. Statistical (between-group analyses of covariance) and clinical effects were analyzed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Both groups showed improved outcomes, but global QoL was significantly better with BENECA mHealth and rehabilitation than BENECA mHealth alone (mean difference, 12.76; 95% confidence interval 4.85; 20.67; P=0.004), with a moderate-to-large effect size (d=72). The proportion of participants reporting reliable clinical improvement on global QoL at T2 was higher with BENECA mHealth and rehabilitation than BENECA mHealth alone (57.5% vs 26.3%, P=0.008). Improvement in subjective and objective upper-limb functionality was also higher with BENECA mHealth and rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The BENECA mHealth lifestyle application with a supervised rehabilitation program had a statistically and clinically significant effect on QoL and upper-limb functionality in breast cancer survivors and is a unique and important promising new approach.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Survival rates in cancer are increasing exponentially, with a corresponding increase/influence in disability-adjusted life-years. Efforts should be made to explore the optimal balance between unsupervised/distance-based and supervised/onsite approaches to cancer care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the BENECA mobile Health (mHealth) lifestyle application combined with a supervised rehabilitation program (BENECA and supervised rehabilitation) versus the BENECA mHealth lifestyle application alone on quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes of breast cancer survivors. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 80 survivors of breast cancer diagnosed at stage I-IIIA, who completed adjuvant therapy and were overweight or obese at diagnosis. Participants were randomly allocated (ratio 1:1, 3 waves) to BENECA mHealth and rehabilitation for 2months (n=40) or BENECA mHealth and usual care (BENECA mHealth alone; n=40). Participants completed a questionnaire at baseline (T1), 8-weeks post-intervention (T2) and 6-month follow-up (T3). The primary outcome was QoL assessed with the EORT QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes included upper-limb functionality and body composition. Statistical (between-group analyses of covariance) and clinical effects were analyzed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Both groups showed improved outcomes, but global QoL was significantly better with BENECA mHealth and rehabilitation than BENECA mHealth alone (mean difference, 12.76; 95% confidence interval 4.85; 20.67; P=0.004), with a moderate-to-large effect size (d=72). The proportion of participants reporting reliable clinical improvement on global QoL at T2 was higher with BENECA mHealth and rehabilitation than BENECA mHealth alone (57.5% vs 26.3%, P=0.008). Improvement in subjective and objective upper-limb functionality was also higher with BENECA mHealth and rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The BENECA mHealth lifestyle application with a supervised rehabilitation program had a statistically and clinically significant effect on QoL and upper-limb functionality in breast cancer survivors and is a unique and important promising new approach.