The feasibility of a multidimensional intervention in lymphoma survivors with chronic fatigue.

PURPOSE: Chronic fatigue (CF) affects 25-30% of lymphoma survivors, but interventions designed to reduce fatigue are lacking. The main aim of this study was to test the feasibility of a multidimensional intervention study in lymphoma survivors with CF. Secondary aims were to describe individual changes in fatigue, quality of life (QoL) and physical performance from pre (T0) to post (T1) intervention. METHODS: This feasibility study was as a one-armed intervention study performed in 2021. Hodgkin or aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors received mailed study information and Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire and were asked to respond if they suffered from fatigue. The 12-week intervention included patient education, physical exercise, a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based group program and nutritional counselling. Feasibility data included patient recruitment, completion of assessments, adherence to the intervention and patient-reported experience measures. Participants responded to questionnaires and underwent physical tests at T0 and T1. RESULTS: Seven lymphoma survivors with CF were included. Of all assessments, 91% and 83% were completed at T0 and T1, respectively. Adherence to the interventional components varied from 69% to 91%. At T1, all participants rated exercise as useful, of whom five rated the CBT-based program and five rated individual nutritional counselling as useful. Five participants reported improved fatigue, QoL and physical performance. CONCLUSION: Lymphoma survivors with CF participating in a multidimensional intervention designed to reduce the level of fatigue showed high assessment completion rate and intervention adherence rate. Most of the participants evaluated the program as useful and improved their level of fatigue, QoL and physical performance after the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04931407. Registered 16. April 2021-Retrospectively registered. https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04931407.

Design of a 20-month comprehensive, multicomponent school-based randomised trial to promote healthy weight development among 11-13 year olds: The HEalth In Adolescents study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The lack of effective school-based interventions for preventing obesity in children has caused a call for longer duration of interventions and better reporting on design and evaluation methodology. The purpose of this paper is to present the development of the intervention, the design of the effectiveness study, and the test-retest reliability of the main outcome measures in the HEalth In Adolescents (HEIA) study. METHODS/DESIGN: The HEIA intervention programme was developed based on literature reviews, a social ecological framework, and focus groups. The intervention aimed to increase total physical activity (PA) and consumption of fruit and vegetables and to decrease screen time and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. The intervention programme consisted of a classroom component, including dietary behaviour lessons, computer tailoring, fruit/vegetable and PA breaks, and posters, and an environmental component including active transport campaigns, equipment, suggestions for easy improvements of schoolyards, inspirational courses for teachers (all with regards to PA), and fact sheets to parents. The effect of the intervention programme is evaluated in a cluster randomised controlled trial design (intervention = 12 schools, control = 25 schools) including process evaluation. Main outcomes include anthropometry, PA, screen time, and consumption of fruit, vegetables, and sugar-sweetened beverages. A 2-week test- retest study was conducted among 114 pupils. Determinants of the behaviours were assessed. Similar data were collected from parents. Children's PA was measured objectively by accelerometers. CONCLUSIONS: The HEIA study represents a theoretically informed randomised trial comprising a comprehensive set of multilevel intervention components with a thorough evaluation using reliable outcome measures. The study will contribute to a better understanding of determinants of healthy weight development among young people and how such determinants can be modified.

A systematic review of the evidence regarding efficacy of obesity prevention interventions among adults.

In the past, interventions aimed at reducing obesity have mainly targeted at weight loss treatment in obese adults, with limited long-term effects. With the increasing number of people being obese and being at risk for obesity, there has been a shift in focus towards prevention of obesity. We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on the efficacy of obesity prevention interventions in adults in order to identify effective interventions and intervention elements. Pubmed, OVID, and Web of Science databases were searched from January 1996 to June 2006. Interventions aimed at primary prevention of weight gain among adults achieved by focusing on dietary intake, physical activity or the combination of both were included. The outcome measure had to be difference in change in body mass index or body weight between the intervention and the control groups. Nine studies were included, five long-term studies (at least 1 year) and four short-term (3 months to 1 year). Seven studies evaluated an intervention that focused on a combination of diet and physical activity to prevent weight gain, one on diet only and one on physical activity only. One dietary intervention (long-term), and three combined dietary and physical activity interventions (one long-term and two short-term) produced significantly positive results at end of follow-up. The two long-term, effective interventions consisted of intensive and long-term intervention implementation, including groups sessions designed to promote behavioural changes. The current evidence of efficacy of obesity prevention interventions is based on a very small number of studies. Some studies showed a positive impact on body mass index or weight status, but there was too much heterogeneity in terms of study design, theoretical underpinning and target population to draw firm conclusions about which intervention approaches are more effective than others. More research is urgently needed to extend the body of evidence.