Samuel T Orange1, Kirsty M Hicks2, John M Saxton2. 1. School of Biomedical, Nutritional, and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, The Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK. sam.orange@newcastle.ac.uk. 2. Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the effectiveness of tailored physical activity and dietary interventions amongst adults attending colorectal and breast cancer screening. METHODS: Five literature databases were systematically searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tailored physical activity and/or dietary interventions with follow-up support initiated through colorectal and breast cancer screening programmes. Outcomes included markers of body fatness, physical activity, and dietary intake. Mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random effects models. RESULTS: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria encompassing a total of 722 participants. Diet and physical activity interventions led to statistically significant reductions in body mass (MD - 1.6 kg, 95% CI - 2.7 to - 0.39 kg; I2 = 81%; low quality evidence), body mass index (MD - 0.78 kg/m2, 95% CI - 1.1 to - 0.50 kg/m2; I2 = 21%; moderate quality evidence), and waist circumference (MD - 2.9 cm, 95% CI - 3.8 to - 1.91; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence), accompanied by an increase in physical activity (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.50; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence) and fruit and vegetable intake (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.64; I2 = 51%; low quality evidence). CONCLUSION: There is low quality evidence that lifestyle interventions involving follow-up support lead to modest weight loss and increased physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake. Due to the modest intervention effects, low quality of evidence and small number of studies, further rigorously designed RCTs with long-term follow-up of modifiable risk factors and embedded cost-benefit analyses are warranted (PROSPERO ref: CRD42020179960).
PURPOSE: To estimate the effectiveness of tailored physical activity and dietary interventions amongst adults attending colorectal and breast cancer screening. METHODS: Five literature databases were systematically searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tailored physical activity and/or dietary interventions with follow-up support initiated through colorectal and breast cancer screening programmes. Outcomes included markers of body fatness, physical activity, and dietary intake. Mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random effects models. RESULTS: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria encompassing a total of 722 participants. Diet and physical activity interventions led to statistically significant reductions in body mass (MD - 1.6 kg, 95% CI - 2.7 to - 0.39 kg; I2 = 81%; low quality evidence), body mass index (MD - 0.78 kg/m2, 95% CI - 1.1 to - 0.50 kg/m2; I2 = 21%; moderate quality evidence), and waist circumference (MD - 2.9 cm, 95% CI - 3.8 to - 1.91; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence), accompanied by an increase in physical activity (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.50; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence) and fruit and vegetable intake (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.64; I2 = 51%; low quality evidence). CONCLUSION: There is low quality evidence that lifestyle interventions involving follow-up support lead to modest weight loss and increased physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake. Due to the modest intervention effects, low quality of evidence and small number of studies, further rigorously designed RCTs with long-term follow-up of modifiable risk factors and embedded cost-benefit analyses are warranted (PROSPERO ref: CRD42020179960).
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer screening; Diet; Health promotion; Physical activity; Risk reduction
Authors: Sheri R Colberg; Ronald J Sigal; Jane E Yardley; Michael C Riddell; David W Dunstan; Paddy C Dempsey; Edward S Horton; Kristin Castorino; Deborah F Tate Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: George Dowswell; Angela Ryan; Aliki Taylor; Amanda Daley; Nick Freemantle; Matthew Brookes; Janet Jones; Richard Haslop; Chloe Grimmett; Kar-Keung Cheng; Wilson Sue Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Steven C Moore; I-Min Lee; Elisabete Weiderpass; Peter T Campbell; Joshua N Sampson; Cari M Kitahara; Sarah K Keadle; Hannah Arem; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Patricia Hartge; Hans-Olov Adami; Cindy K Blair; Kristin B Borch; Eric Boyd; David P Check; Agnès Fournier; Neal D Freedman; Marc Gunter; Mattias Johannson; Kay-Tee Khaw; Martha S Linet; Nicola Orsini; Yikyung Park; Elio Riboli; Kim Robien; Catherine Schairer; Howard Sesso; Michael Spriggs; Roy Van Dusen; Alicja Wolk; Charles E Matthews; Alpa V Patel Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873