Interventions for promoting habitual exercise in people living with and beyond cancer.

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer are becoming apparent. However, how to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary cancer cohorts is not as well understood. A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet exercise recommendations. Hence, reviewing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following questions: Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance? What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions? Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers? Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term (12 months or longer) exercise behaviour? What frequency of contact with exercise professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour? What theoretical basis is most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? What behaviour change techniques are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 8, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycLIT/PsycINFO, SportDiscus and PEDro from inception to August 2012. We also searched the grey literature, wrote to leading experts in the field, wrote to charities and searched reference lists of other recent systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention with a usual care approach in sedentary people over the age of 18 with a homogenous primary cancer diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors working independently (LB and KH) screened all titles and abstracts to identify studies that might meet the inclusion criteria, or that cannot be safely excluded without assessment of the full text (e.g. when no abstract is available). All eligible papers were formally abstracted by at least two members of the review author team working independently (LB and KH) and using the data collection form. When possible, and if appropriate, we performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis of study outcomes. For continuous outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness), we extracted the final value, the standard deviation of the outcome of interest and the number of participants assessed at follow-up in each treatment arm, to estimate standardised mean difference (SMD) between treatment arms. SMD was used, as investigators used heterogeneous methods to assess individual outcomes. If a meta-analysis was not possible or was not appropriate, we synthesised studies as a narrative. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials were included in this review, involving a total of 648 participants. Only studies involving breast, prostate or colorectal cancer were identified as eligible. Just six trials incorporated a target level of exercise that could meet current recommendations. Only three trials were identified that attempted to objectively validate independent exercise behaviour with accelerometers or heart rate monitoring. Adherence to exercise interventions, which is crucial for understanding treatment dose, is often poorly reported. It is important to note that the fundamental metrics of exercise behaviour (i.e. frequency, intensity and duration, repetitions, sets and intensity of resistance training), although easy to devise and report, are seldom included in published clinical trials.None of the included trials reported that 75% or greater adherence (the stated primary outcome for this review) of the intervention group met current aerobic exercise recommendations at any given follow-up. Just two trials reported six weeks of resistance exercise behaviour that would meet the guideline recommendations. However, three trials reported adherence of 75% or greater to an aerobic exercise goal that was less than the current guideline recommendation of 150 minutes per week. All three incorporated both supervised and independent exercise components as part of the intervention, and none placed restrictions on the control group in terms of exercise behaviour. These three trials shared programme set goals and the following behaviour change techniques: generalisation of a target behaviour; prompting of self-monitoring of behaviour; and prompting of practise. Despite the uncertainty surrounding adherence in many of the included trials, interventions caused improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at 8 to 12 weeks (from 7 studies, SMD 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95) in intervention participants compared with controls. At six months, aerobic exercise tolerance was also improved (from 5 studies, SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.94), but it should be noted that four of the five trials used in this analysis had a high risk of bias, hence caution is warranted in interpretation of results. Attrition over the course of these interventions is typically low (median 6%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to promote exercise in cancer survivors who report better levels of adherence share some common behaviour change techniques. These involve setting programme goals, prompting practise and self-monitoring and encouraging participants to attempt to generalise behaviours learned in supervised exercise environments to other, non-supervised contexts. However, expecting most sedentary survivors to achieve current guideline recommendations of at least 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise is likely to be unrealistic. As with all well-designed exercise programmes in any context, prescriptions should be designed around individual capabilities, and frequency, duration and intensity or sets, repetitions, intensity or resistance training should be generated on this basis.

Effective delivery styles and content for self-management interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to report the evidence for effectiveness of different self-management course characteristics and components for chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We searched 9 relevant electronic databases for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers selected studies against inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. We classified RCTs according to type of course delivery (group, individual, mixed or remote), tutor (healthcare professional, lay or mixed), setting (medical, community or occupational), duration (more or less than 8 weeks), and the number and type of components (psychological, lifestyle, pain education, mind body therapies, and physical activity). We extracted data on pain intensity, physical function, self-efficacy, global health, and depression and compared these outcomes for self-management and usual care or waiting list control. We used random effects standardized mean difference meta-analysis. We looked for patterns of clinically important and statistically significant beneficial effects for courses with different delivery characteristics and the presence or absence of components across outcomes over 3 follow-up intervals. RESULTS: We included 46 RCTs (N=8539). Group-delivered courses that had healthcare professional input showed more beneficial effects. Longer courses did not necessarily give better outcomes. There was mixed evidence of effectiveness for components of courses, but data for courses with a psychological component showed slightly more consistent beneficial effects over each follow-up period. DISCUSSION: Serious consideration should be given to the development of short (<8 weeks) group and healthcare professional-delivered interventions but more research is required to establish the most effective and cost-effective course components.

Can we identify how programmes aimed at promoting self-management in musculoskeletal pain work and who benefits? A systematic review of sub-group analysis within RCTs.

BACKGROUND: There are now several systematic reviews of RCTs testing self-management for those with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of self-management interventions in chronic musculoskeletal pain is equivocal and it is not clear for which sub-groups of patients SM is optimally effective. AIMS: To systematically review randomized controlled trials of self-management for chronic musculoskeletal pain that reported predictors, i.e., 'baseline factors that predict outcome independent of any treatment effect'; moderators, i.e., 'baseline factors which predict benefit from a particular treatment'; or mediators i.e., 'factors measured during treatment that impact on outcome' of outcome. METHOD: We searched relevant electronic databases. We assessed the evidence according to the methodological strengths of the studies. We did meta-regression analyses for age and gender, as potential moderators. RESULTS: Although the methodological quality of primary trials was good, there were few relevant studies; most were compromised by lack of power for moderator and mediator analyses. We found strong evidence that self-efficacy and depression at baseline predict outcome and strong evidence that pain catastrophizing and physical activity can mediate outcome from self-management. There was insufficient data on moderators of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests four factors that relate to outcome as predictors/mediators, but there is no evidence for effect moderators. Future studies of mediation and moderation should be designed with 'a priori' hypotheses and adequate statistical power.