| Literature DB >> 35674791 |
Jillian Larkin1, Lais Vanzella2, Scott Thomas3, Tracey J F Colella1,2,4, Paul Oh1,2.
Abstract
Breast cancer accounts for 25% of all cancers among Canadian females. Despite successes of decreased mortality, adverse treatment effects, such as cardiotoxicity, contribute to a sedentary lifestyle and decreased quality of life. Physical activity (PA) is a possible therapy for the late effects; however, COVID-19 restricted access to in-person cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) programs. The purposes are as follows: (1) compare PA of breast cancer survivors' in-person CR to virtual CR following a transition during COVID-19 and (2) compare the PA of the pandemic cohort to a matched cohort who had completed the program in 2018/2019; (3) explore survivors' experiences of transitioning to and engaging in virtual CR. Mixed methods included analysis of CR PA data from a pandemic cohort (n = 18) and a 2018/2019 cohort (n = 18) and semi-structured focus group interviews with the pandemic cohort (n = 9) in the context of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model. After the transition, there were no significant differences in mean activity duration, frequency, and cumulative activity (expressed as MET-minutes) (p > 0.05). However, variation of PA duration doubled following the transition from in-person to virtual (p = 0.029), while for the 2018/2019 cohort, variation remained unchanged. Focus groups revealed that women valued their CR experiences pre-COVID-19 and had feelings of anxiety during the transition. Perceived factors affecting participation were environmental, personal, and behavioural. Recommendations for virtual programs were to increase comradery, technology, and professional guidance. PA experiences during a transition to virtual care prompted by a pandemic vary among breast cancer survivors. Targeting individualised strategies and exercise prescriptions are important for improving PA programs and patient outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Cancer rehabilitation; Neoplasm; Physical activity; Qualitative research; Survivorship
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35674791 PMCID: PMC9174444 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07142-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Support Care Cancer ISSN: 0941-4355 Impact factor: 3.359
Fig. 1Overview of study design
Breast cancer survivor baseline characteristics
| Variable | 2018/2019 cohort ( | Pandemic cohort ( | Pandemic cohort—focus groups ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years, mean (SD) | 52.4 (10.7) | 51.6 (10.8) | 53.6 (8.9) |
| Time since BC diagnosis, years | 1.1 (0.7) | 0.8 (0.6) | 1.1 (0.6) |
| Body composition | |||
| Height, cm | 164 (6.4) | 162 (7.3) | 164 (5.8) |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 24.6 (3.7) | 26.1 (4.8) | 27.6 (3.9) |
| VO2peak, mL∙kg-1∙min-1 | 25.0 (5.7) | 24.1 (5.3) | 21.8 (5.2) |
| Cardiovascular risk factors, | |||
| Smoking history | 4 (22) | 3 (17) | 3 (33) |
| Dyslipidaemia | 4 (17) | 2 (11) | 1 (11) |
| Hypertension | 4 (22) | 1 (6) | 1 (11) |
| Alcohol/drugs | 0 | 2 (11) | 2 (22) |
| Type 2 diabetes | 1 (6) | 1 (6) | 0 |
| CES-D score, mean (SD) | 14.9 (9.5) ( | 18.4 (13) ( | 14.4 (11) |
| Cardiovascular medications, | |||
| ARBs | 2 (11) | 1 (6) | 0 |
| Beta-blockers | 4 (22) | 1 (6) | 0 |
| CCBs | 1 (6) | 0 | 1 (11) |
| ACE inhibitors | 6 (33) | 1 (6) | 1 (11) |
| Anticoagulants | 1 (6) | 1 (6) | 0 |
| Diuretic | 0 | 0 | 1 (11) |
| Statins | 2 (11) | 2 (11) | 1 (11) |
| Metformin | 1 (6) | 1 (6) | 0 |
| Treatment for breast cancer, | |||
| Trastuzumab (Herceptin) | 6 (33) | 3 (17) | 0 |
| Tamoxifen | 7 (39) | 8 (44) | 2 (22) |
| Letrozole | 2 (11) | 3 (17) | 1 (11) |
| Anastrazole | 2 (11) | 1 (6) | 1 (11) |
| Zometa | 1 (6) | 0 | 0 |
| Zoladex | 1 (6) | 4 (22) | 2 (22) |
| Exemestane | 1 (6) | 1 (6) | 0 |
| Xeloda | 1 (6) | 0 | 1 (11) |
Participation in cardiovascular rehabilitation programs (n = 18)
| Variable | 1st time point§ | Inter-group comparison | 2nd time point§§ | Inter-group comparison | Time between time points | Inter-group comparison | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | | ||||
| Program participation, months | |||||||
| Pandemic | 2 (1.6)† | 3.6 (1.6)† | 1.5 (0.6)† | ||||
| 2018/2019 | 1.6 (0.8)† | 0.068 | 3.0 (1.1)† | 0.045* | 1.4 (0.6)† | 0.527 | |
| 1st time point§ | Inter-group comparison | 2nd time point§§ | Intra-group comparison | Inter-group comparison | |||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean change (SD) | Mean change | ||||
| Duration of PA, min/week | |||||||
| Pandemic | 113.8 (51.2) | 120.1 (105)† | +6.3 (103.5) | 0.795 | |||
| 2018/2019 | 120.9 (56.3) | 0.587 | 124.6 (46.6) | +3.6 (40.7) | 0.711 | +2.7 | 0.919 |
| Frequency of PA, days/week | |||||||
| Pandemic | 3.6 (1.4) | 3.3 (2.4) | -0.33 (2.5) | 0.575 | |||
| 2018/2019 | 4 (1.5) | 0.331 | 3.7 (1.2) | -0.28 (0.9)† | 0.205 | -0.05 | 0.977 |
| Cumulative MET-min/week | |||||||
| Pandemic | 509.5 (302)† | 476.4 (369) | -33.1 (402.4) | 0.523 | |||
| 2018/2019 | 600.4 (306) | 0.122 | 597.6 (306) | -2.8 (198)† | 0.952 | -30.3 | 0.500 |
§Approximately 4 weeks before and §§4 weeks after the transition to virtual (similar time points in 2018/2019)
†Non-normally distributed used Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparisons
*Significance is set at p < 0.05
Duration of physical activity in subgroups
| PA duration, min/week | Number of participants | First time point | Second time point | Intra-group comparison | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean change (SD) | |||
| Increase | |||||
| Pandemic | 7 (39) | 100.8 (37.9) | 204.3 (100.1) | +103.4 (91.3) | 0.024* |
| 2018/2019 | 11 (61) | 111.1 (51.5) | 138.5 (47.1) | +27.4 (14.6) | 0.000** |
| Decrease | |||||
| Pandemic | 10 (56) | 114.3 (55.1) | 53.2 (54)† | -61.1 (47.7) | 0.005** |
| 2018/2019 | 6 (33) | 152.5 (52.4) | 113 (30.1) | -39.5 (41.6) | 0.068 |
| Maintain | |||||
| Pandemic | 1 (6) | 200 | 200 | 0 | |
| 2018/2019 | 1 (6) | 40 | 40 | 0 | |
†Non-normally distributed used Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison
*Significance is set at p < 0.05
**Significance is set at p < 0.01
Summary of the focus group themes and subthemes
| PRECEDE-PROCEED | Themes | Subthemes | Supporting quotations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predisposing factors | Theme 1: unified as a group pre-COVID-19 | “I loved the program, it was amazing. I was feeling better and making great progress” | |
| “Just the support from the other cancer survivors being there unified as a group was helping push me forward” | |||
| “I can’t say enough great things about all of the staff that were there. They were so knowledgeable and motivating and it was a thrill to see them all” | |||
| Predisposing factors | Theme 2: the transition in CR experience due to COVID-19 | Subtheme 2a: tough and disappointing end of in-person CR | “It was a huge, huge disappointment and I felt overwhelmed because I thought I’m going to do this, I’m going to get better” |
| “There was a little bit of dialogue with me in the beginning but then I just kind of felt like I fell off the face of the earth with everybody and the group” | |||
| Subtheme 2b: COVID-19 caused stress on top of health issues | “My health concerns were that I was still doing treatment and I had to go to the hospital every few weeks for blood tests. The first time doing that with all the new protocols, that was very nerve-wracking and everything” | ||
| Subtheme 2c: I’ve got to get it [cardiac rehabilitation] done | “We had done so much of the program. You kind of want to finish it” | ||
| “I was really happy that there was something that I could do. It offered some hope to try and deal with everything” | |||
| Enabling factors | Theme 3: CR participation during COVID-19 | Subtheme 3a: virtual participation levels | “Once it went virtual you lost me there. I just couldn’t do the virtual… It was an emotional thing for me as well. I think that once we went virtual, I just lost all of that. I didn’t do much inside the house at all. I would walk but there’s only so much walking you can do” |
| “I tried to do some exercise at home but wasn’t great at it when there was nothing structured… I was happy to have the online choice. I did participate in [it] a lot” | |||
| Subtheme 3b: environmental factors | “Very compassionate, very supportive. I was really, really happy with the results of the support I was getting. It made me feel better in a lot of ways and helped keep me motivated even when I was losing the motivation” | ||
| “My husband would just say let’s go for a walk and if I was up to it, we’d go walk” | |||
| “I thought the videos they put on worked great” | |||
“I got a phone call saying thank you very much for your participation in our program and if you have any other questions give the healthcare network a call and basically, we are done with you. That was actually really discouraging” | |||
| “It’s nicer to be doing those exercises with other people. We always have so many laughs it didn’t seem like it was exercise or work, it seemed like a fun morning. Doing it on my own comes like a grind” | |||
| “I was just walking but it got to the point where the outdoors were so crowded, we were walking across the street trying to maneuver. It was a little bit trying at times even to walk” | |||
| “I had an issue that my personal facilities shutdown as well, so I lost access to the gym and pool” | |||
| Subtheme 3c: personal factors | “I feel better when I exercise so that was a motivation” | ||
| “Motivation was another big barrier. Just the motivation wasn’t there, there was so much happening in the world that exercise wasn’t top of mind” | |||
| Subtheme 3d: behavioural factors | “A big chunk of it is me being really busy and overwhelmed with so many different stuff” | ||
| “It was overwhelming for me because I couldn’t keep track of all these different sessions that were happening, I just shut down completely” | |||
| Reinforcing factors | Theme 4: recommendations: stay connected and continue on | “I think that utilising it [CR] online to invite a lot of people and when we are all participating at the same time we can be motivated” | |
| “The option for an app is a great, great idea. We can load it up whenever we’re ready” | |||
| “If we had a weekly session, every Friday, at the same time we would still continue doing something and that could help” |