Search

Purpose: Existing research indicates that physical activity (PA) is beneficial to men with prostate cancer (PCa). We examined the potential of a single-contact peer-support-based behavioural intervention to promote PA engagement in men treated for PCa., Methods: A mixed methods design was employed, comprising a two-arm pragmatic trial and semi-structured interviews. The intervention was a 10-min PA-based presentation by a former patient, delivered in group seminars that are provided for patients as standard care. Seminars were alternately allocated to (a) cancer exercise specialist talk + patient speaker talk or (b) cancer exercise specialist talk only. Self-reported PA, exercise motivation, quality of life, fatigue and clinical and demographic characteristics were obtained from n = 148 (intervention: n = 69; control: n = 79) patients immediately prior to the seminar, and at follow-up ≈ 100 days later. Data were analysed using ANCOVA models and χ 2 tests. Fourteen semi-structured interviews with intervention participants, which explored how the intervention was experienced, were analysed using a grounded theory-style approach., Results: The intervention had no significant effect on quantitatively self-reported PA (p = 0.4). However, the intervention was statistically and clinically beneficial for fatigue (p = 0.04) and quality of life (p = 0.01). Qualitative analysis showed that the intervention was beneficial to psychological wellbeing and some participants had increased intention to engage in PA as a result of the intervention., Conclusions: A brief one-off PA-based presentation for men with PCa, delivered by a former patient alongside cancer exercise specialist advice, may result in clinically significant benefits to quality of life and may influence PA intention in certain individuals.

Objective: Existing research indicates that moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (PA) alleviates treatment side effects and is associated with survival in men with prostate cancer. We aimed to ascertain the state of research investigating barriers and facilitators to PA in men with prostate cancer and synthesise existing qualitative research on this topic., Methods: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, PEDro, OATD, and WorldCat were searched to June 2019 for quantitative studies investigating causes or predictors of PA or qualitative studies describing patient-reported barriers/facilitators to PA, amongst men with prostate cancer of any stage. Thirty-two studies (n = 17 quantitative; n = 15 qualitative) were included from 3698 screened articles., Results: Heterogeneity and unsystematic reporting of quantitative study methods prohibited a quantitative data synthesis. Thematic synthesis of qualitative studies produced five analytical themes: individual needs by treatment pathway, self-determination and its relationship with prostate cancer-related events, co-ordination and support of the clinical care team, individual preferences in discrete aspects of PA engagement style, and the potential for a bidirectional facilitative relationship between structured group PA and spontaneous peer support. Both qualitative and quantitative studies indicated incontinence as a barrier., Conclusions: Unsystematic reporting of interventions hinders a robust quantitative understanding of behavioural intervention research in this subject area. Good co-ordination of multidisciplinary care personnel could facilitate PA, by enabling a more comprehensive approach to targeting social cognitive processes. Well-timed intervention and access to highly individualised PA support, including optional group PA classes, seem to also be important facilitators., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: Patients with bladder cancer (BC) have been found to have worse experiences than those with other cancers which may partly be due to impact on quality of life. Currently, little is known about the impact of physical activity (PA) on BC outcomes. This scoping review aims to identify what interventions are available, their reported efficacy and feasibility, and a description of potential underlying biological mechanisms for their effects., Methods and Analysis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review (ScR) guidelines and the Levac methodology framework will be followed/used. Electronic databases will be searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo and Health, OpenGray). Two independent reviewers will screen all abstracts and titles and during a second stage and full-text publications for inclusion. All studies describing PA (as an existing lifestyle or as part of an intervention programme) during BC management will be included. Study characteristics will be recorded; qualitative data will be extracted and evaluated using the Donabedian framework. Quantitative data will be extracted and summarised. A further consultation step will be carried out with patients, their family members and healthcare professionals., Ethics and Dissemination: Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. Through the consultation step, we will ensure that findings will reach a wide audience and recommendations can be made for future development of PA interventions for patients with BC. Data used will be from publicly available secondary sources, and the consultation step will be carried out as part of patient and public involvement so this study does not require ethical review., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Physical activity (PA) is central to self-management for people with colorectal cancer (CRC) to support health behaviour and function secondary to cancer treatment. However, there is limited evidence on how health professionals (HPs) promote PA during cancer treatment. This study aimed to investigate how and when PA is promoted throughout the chemotherapy pathway among colorectal cancer survivors., Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with adults with CRC receiving chemotherapy at a large cancer centre. Cross-sectional observation of clinical consultations was conducted at four points during the chemotherapy pathway: prior, midpoint, final cycle, and 8 weeks following chemotherapy. Following completion of treatment, audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and HPs and transcribed verbatim. Codes and themes were identified and triangulated from all the data using framework analysis. Observational themes are reported and complimented by interview data., Results: Throughout the chemotherapy pathway (pre, midpoint, end), many opportunities were missed by HPs to promote PA as a beneficial means to maintain functioning and ameliorate cancer treatment side effects. When discussed, PA levels were used only to determine fitness for future oncological treatment. No PA promotion was observed despite patients reporting low PA levels or treatment side effects. Post-treatment, PA promotion was more routinely delivered by HPs, as evidenced by problem-solving and onward referrals to relevant HPs., Conclusion: PA promotion was largely absent during treatment despite it being a key component of patient self-management following treatment. This suggests considerable missed opportunities for HPs to provide cancer survivors with PA evidence-based interventions. Further research is necessary to identify how best to ensure PA is promoted throughout the cancer journey., Implication for Cancer Survivors: These findings suggest many may not be receiving support to be physically active during treatment.

Metastatic disease is a frequent complication of advanced cancer, with bone representing one of the most common sites of metastatic occurrence. Patients with bone metastases receive long-term systemic treatments that have a significant attritional impact on muscle strength, fatigue, and physical functioning. Physical rehabilitation involving exercise and physical activity prescription has a considerable role in counteracting these changes; however, exercise is often perceived as a contraindication in the presence of bone metastases due to concerns about aggravating skeletal related events. This article examines the physical sequelae of bone metastases and outlines the factors for consideration with exercise prescription in metastatic bone disease, including bone health, pain levels, and oncologic treatment. This article includes a comprehensive review of the evidence from trials of exercise prescription in this population, including the efficacy and safety outcomes of exercise interventions. Exercise interventions for patients with bone metastases are associated with positive physical and self-reported outcomes. Studies reviewed reporting adverse events did not find a high fracture incidence with exercise in comparison with control participants, or an association between exercise and fracture risk. The need to individualize exercise prescription and adapt exercises to patient ability were reinforced in all papers reviewed. Exercise prescription to patients with bone metastases does involve complex decision making; however, a number of tools are available that may inform both the assessment of patients and the prescription of exercise., Level of Evidence: NA., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim. To explore patient experiences of a structured exercise intervention for men with prostate cancer (PCa). Sample. 41 men with either localised or advanced PCa who had been referred for a structured exercise programme by their physician and then subsequently consented to a telephone survey. Method. Participants underwent a 10-week supervised exercise programme within a large cancer centre hospital consisting of 8 sessions. They then completed a short multiple choice telephone survey, elaborating on their responses where appropriate. Views expressed by participants were analysed using an affinity diagram and common themes were identified. Results. Feedback from our telephone surveys was consistently positive and suggests that the structured exercise intervention provides exercise confidence, motivation to exercise, and social support and promotes positive health behaviour change in the context of exercise. Individual differences arose amongst participants in their perceived utility of the intervention, with 73.3% expressing a preference for structured exercise classes and 19.5% expressing a preference for exercising independently. Conclusion. Design of a structured exercise intervention for patients with PCa should embrace the positive aspects outlined here but consider patients’ individual differences. Ongoing feedback from patients should be utilised alongside traditional study designs to inform intervention design in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]