Christian Lopez1,2, Kaitlin McGarragle2, Cheryl Pritlove3,4, Jennifer M Jones2,5, Shabbir M H Alibhai5,6, Erica Lenton7, Daniel Santa Mina8,9,10. 1. Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, The University of Toronto, 55 Harbord St., Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2W6, Canada. 2. Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Gerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, The University of Toronto, 55 Harbord St., Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2W6, Canada. daniel.santamina@utoronto.ca. 9. Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. daniel.santamina@utoronto.ca. 10. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. daniel.santamina@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature reflects considerable heterogeneity in what constitutes home-based exercise interventions. The variability for where and what "home-based" exercise can represent challenges interpretation of findings and appropriate advocacy, referral, or development of these models of care. Therefore, the objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive summary of how home-based exercise is defined and reported in the literature and summarize the range of supportive elements utilized in home-based exercise trials. METHODS: We followed methodology for scoping reviews. Relevant research databases were searched from inception to March 2019. Two reviewers independently screened articles to determine eligibility and extracted terminology used to describe home-based exercise and intervention details for intervention delivery. RESULTS: Of the 9432 records identified, 229 articles met inclusion criteria. Across the literature, exercise interventions were described as home-based if they were completed at-home, outdoors in the neighbourhood, and in community facilities; or in self-selected environments; or if they were unsupervised. Supportive elements for home-based models ranged with respect to the amount of supervision and resources utilized, including the provision of print materials, exercise equipment, telephone support, home visits, and technology. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive summary of strategies previously utilized to deliver home-based exercise interventions in oncology, along with the various definitions of the home-based environment for exercise reported by researchers. Specific recommendations to improve the prescription and reporting of home-based exercise interventions are provided in order to facilitate the delivery, evaluation, and translation of findings into clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: The literature reflects considerable heterogeneity in what constitutes home-based exercise interventions. The variability for where and what "home-based" exercise can represent challenges interpretation of findings and appropriate advocacy, referral, or development of these models of care. Therefore, the objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive summary of how home-based exercise is defined and reported in the literature and summarize the range of supportive elements utilized in home-based exercise trials. METHODS: We followed methodology for scoping reviews. Relevant research databases were searched from inception to March 2019. Two reviewers independently screened articles to determine eligibility and extracted terminology used to describe home-based exercise and intervention details for intervention delivery. RESULTS: Of the 9432 records identified, 229 articles met inclusion criteria. Across the literature, exercise interventions were described as home-based if they were completed at-home, outdoors in the neighbourhood, and in community facilities; or in self-selected environments; or if they were unsupervised. Supportive elements for home-based models ranged with respect to the amount of supervision and resources utilized, including the provision of print materials, exercise equipment, telephone support, home visits, and technology. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive summary of strategies previously utilized to deliver home-based exercise interventions in oncology, along with the various definitions of the home-based environment for exercise reported by researchers. Specific recommendations to improve the prescription and reporting of home-based exercise interventions are provided in order to facilitate the delivery, evaluation, and translation of findings into clinical practice.
Authors: C M Fairman; O L Owens; K L Kendall; J Steele; C Latella; M T Jones; L Marcotte; C M J Peddle-McIntyre; K K McDonnell Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-05-18
Authors: Christian J Lopez; Cheryl Pritlove; Jennifer M Jones; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Catherine M Sabiston; Eugene Chang; Daniel Santa Mina Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tianyu Wang; Philip R Stanforth; R Y Declan Fleming; J Stuart Wolf; Dixie Stanforth; Hirofumi Tanaka Journal: JMIR Perioper Med Date: 2021-12-30
Authors: Érica Q Silva; Danilo P Santos; Raquel I Beteli; Renan L Monteiro; Jane S S P Ferreira; Ronaldo H Cruvinel-Junior; Asha Donini; Jady L Verissímo; Eneida Y Suda; Isabel C N Sacco Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 4.379