Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(3): e242375, 2024 Mar 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38526495

ABSTRACT

Importance: There is a lack of trials examining the effect of counseling interventions for child, adolescent, and younger adult (CAYA) cancer survivors. Objective: To assess lifestyle habits and the psychosocial situation of CAYAs to determine the efficacy of needs-based interventions in the CARE for CAYA program (CFC-P). Design, Setting, and Participants: The CFC-P was conducted as a multicenter program in 14 German outpatient clinics, mainly university cancer centers. Recruitment began January 1, 2018; a randomized clinical trial was conducted until July 15, 2019; and intervention was continued as a longitudinal cohort study until March 31, 2021. Data preparation was conducted from April 1, 2021, and analysis was conducted from August 14, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Herein, predefined confirmatory analyses pertain to the RCT and descriptive results relate to the overall longitudinal study. Data analysis was based on the full analysis set, which is as close as possible to the intention-to-treat principle. Intervention: A comprehensive assessment determined needs in physical activity, nutrition and psychooncology. Those with high needs participated in 1 to 3 modules. In the RCT, the IG received 5 counseling sessions plus newsletters, while the control group CG received 1 counseling session. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in the rate of CAYAs with high needs at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, modular-specific end points, satisfaction, quality of life, and fatigue. Results: Of 1502 approached CAYAs aged 15 to 39 years, 692 declined participation. Another 22 CAYAs were excluded, resulting in 788 participants. In the randomized clinical trial, 359 CAYAs were randomized (intervention group [IG], n = 183; control group [CG], n = 176), and 274 were followed up. In the RCT, the median age was 25.0 (IQR, 19.9-32.2) years; 226 were female (63.0%) and 133 male (37.0%). After 52 weeks, 120 CAYAs (87.0%) in the IG and 115 (86.5%) in the CG still had a high need in at least 1 module (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.51-2.11; P = .91). Both groups reported reduced needs, improved quality of life, reduced fatigue, and high satisfaction with the CFC-P. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the implementation of a lifestyle program in this cohort was deemed necessary, despite not meeting the primary outcome. The interventions did not alter the rate of high needs. The results may provide guidance for the development of multimodal interventions in the follow-up care of CAYAs. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trial Register: DRKS00012504.


Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Neoplasms , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Female , Male , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Survivorship , Quality of Life , Cohort Studies , Life Style , Fatigue , Neoplasms/therapy
2.
Clin Rehabil ; 35(8): 1164-1174, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33685232

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether a structured counselling-based intervention increases vigorous physical activity behaviour of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. DESIGN: Randomized controlled phase II trial. SETTING: University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. SUBJECTS: Eighty-nine participants (mean age 24.1 ± 6.3) were randomized to control (n = 44) or intervention group (n = 45). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group was consulted about physical activity behaviour via interview (week 0), and telephone counselling (weeks 1, 3 and 12). The control group only received general physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors (week 0). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of participants with ⩾9 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours per week of vigorous activity post-intervention, measured with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included assessing physical activity behaviour (e.g. amount and type of physical activity) and quality of life. Assessments were completed in weeks 0 (baseline), 12 (post-intervention) and 52 (follow-up). RESULTS: Sixty-nine participants completed the post-intervention- and 47 the follow-up-assessment. The rate of participants performing vigorous physical activity increased from baseline to post-intervention for both without differing significantly (P = 0.541). Both increased their total metabolic equivalent from baseline to post-intervention (intervention group from 55.2 ± 43.7 to 61.7 ± 29.4, control group from 75.3 ± 81.4 to 88.3 ± 80.2). At follow-up the intervention group (73.7 ± 80.2) was more active than baseline when compared to the control group (78.5 ± 50.0). CONCLUSIONS: A structured counselling-based physical activity intervention did not significantly impact the level of vigorous physical activity behaviour in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.


Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors/psychology , Counseling/methods , Exercise/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Energy Metabolism/physiology , Female , Germany , Humans , Male , Motivation , Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Life , Telephone , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...