PURPOSE: Theory-based interventions aimed at promoting health behavior change in cancer survivors seem to be effective but remain scarce. More information on intervention features is also needed. This review aimed to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of theory-based interventions (and its features) on physical activity (PA) and/or diet behaviors in cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic search in three databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science) identified studies that (i) targeted adult cancer survivors and (ii) included theory-based randomized controlled trials designed to influence PA, diet, or weight management. A qualitative synthesis of interventions’ effectiveness, extensiveness of theory use, and applied intervention techniques was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included. Socio-Cognitive Theory was the most used theory, showing promising results in PA-only trials and mixed findings in multiple-behavior interventions. Mixed findings were observed for interventions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Transtheoretical Model. Limited findings were found in diet-only interventions. A large variability in the extensiveness of theory use, and in intervention techniques was found. Further research is required to understand how and why these interventions offer promise for improving behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Theory-based interventions seem to improve PA and diet behaviors in cancer survivors. Further studies, including thorough intervention descriptions, are needed to confirm these findings and identify the optimal features and content of lifestyle theory-based interventions for cancer survivors. Implications for Cancer Survivors: This systematic review can contribute to the development of more effective interventions to promote long-term adherence to healthy lifestyle behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Multidimensional rehabilitation programmes (MDRPs) have developed in response to the growing number of people living with and surviving cancer. MDRPs comprise a physical component and a psychosocial component. Studies of the effectiveness of these programmes have not been reviewed and synthesised.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of studies examining the effectiveness of MDRPs in terms of maintaining or improving the physical and psychosocial well-being of adult cancer survivors.
SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO up to February 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Selection criteria focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of multidimensional interventions for adult cancer survivors. Interventions had to include a physical component and a psychosocial component and to have been carried out on two or more occasions following completion of primary cancer treatment. Outcomes had to be assessed using validated measures of physical health and psychosocial well-being. Non-English language papers were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected trials, rated their methodological quality and extracted relevant data. Although meta-analyses of primary and secondary endpoints were planned there was a high level of study heterogeneity and only one common outcome measure (SF-36) could be statistically synthesised. In addition, we conducted a narrative analysis of interventions, particularly in terms of inspecting and identifying intervention components, grouping or categorising interventions and examining potential common links and outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (comprising 1669 participants) met the eligibility criteria. We judged five studies to have a moderate risk of bias and assessed the remaining seven as having a high risk of bias. It was possible to include SF-36 physical health component scores from five studies in a meta-analysis. Participating in a MDRP was associated with an increase in SF-36 physical health component scores (mean difference (MD) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 4.31, P = 0.04). The findings from the narrative analysis suggested that MDRPs with a single domain or outcome focus appeared to be more successful than programmes with multiple aims. In addition, programmes that comprised participants with different types of cancer compared to cancer site-specific programmes were more likely to show positive improvements in physical outcomes. The most effective mode of service delivery appeared to be face-to-face contact supplemented with at least one follow-up telephone call. There was no evidence to indicate that MDRPs which lasted longer than six months improved outcomes beyond the level attained at six months. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that services were more effective if they were delivered by a particular type of health professional.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of brief, focused MDRPs for cancer survivors. Rigorous and methodologically sound clinical trials that include an economic analysis are required.
Introduction. Many cancer survivors suffer from a combination of disease- and treatment-related morbidities and complaints after primary treatment. There is a growing evidence base for the effectiveness of monodimensional rehabilitation interventions; in practice, however, patients often participate in multidimensional programs. This study systematically reviews evidence regarding effectiveness of multidimensional rehabilitation programs for cancer survivors and cost-effectiveness of cancer rehabilitation in general. Methods. The published literature was systematically reviewed. Data were extracted using standardized forms and were summarized narratively. Results. Sixteen effectiveness and six cost-effectiveness studies were included. Multidimensional rehabilitation programs were found to be effective, but not more effective than monodimensional interventions, and not on all outcome measures. Effect sizes for quality of life were in the range of -0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.45- 0.20) to 0.98 (95% CI, 0.69-1.29). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -€16,976, indicating cost savings, to €11,057 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusions. The evidence for multidimensional interventions and the economic impact of rehabilitation studies is scarce and dominated by breast cancer studies. Studies published so far report statistically significant benefits for multidimensional interventions over usual care, most notably for the outcomes fatigue and physical functioning. An additional benefit of multidimensional over monodimensional rehabilitation was not found, but this was also sparsely reported on. Available economic evaluations assessed very different rehabilitation interventions. Yet, despite low comparability, all showed favorable cost-effectiveness ratios. Future studies should focus their designs on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multidimensional programs.
Theory-based interventions aimed at promoting health behavior change in cancer survivors seem to be effective but remain scarce. More information on intervention features is also needed. This review aimed to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of theory-based interventions (and its features) on physical activity (PA) and/or diet behaviors in cancer survivors.
METHODS:
A systematic search in three databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science) identified studies that (i) targeted adult cancer survivors and (ii) included theory-based randomized controlled trials designed to influence PA, diet, or weight management. A qualitative synthesis of interventions’ effectiveness, extensiveness of theory use, and applied intervention techniques was conducted.
RESULTS:
Twenty-six studies were included. Socio-Cognitive Theory was the most used theory, showing promising results in PA-only trials and mixed findings in multiple-behavior interventions. Mixed findings were observed for interventions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Transtheoretical Model. Limited findings were found in diet-only interventions. A large variability in the extensiveness of theory use, and in intervention techniques was found. Further research is required to understand how and why these interventions offer promise for improving behavior.
CONCLUSIONS:
Theory-based interventions seem to improve PA and diet behaviors in cancer survivors. Further studies, including thorough intervention descriptions, are needed to confirm these findings and identify the optimal features and content of lifestyle theory-based interventions for cancer survivors. Implications for Cancer Survivors: This systematic review can contribute to the development of more effective interventions to promote long-term adherence to healthy lifestyle behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
