Group-based exercise interventions for increasing physical activity in cancer survivors: a systematic review of face-to-face randomized and non-randomized trials

Heather J. Leach, Scherezade Kelly Mama, Samantha M. Harden

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Purpose: To increase physical activity (PA), interventions based on group dynamics may be superior to interventions that target aggregates of people but do not have formal strategies to enhance cohesion. This review examined the extent to which group dynamics processes have been integrated within exercise and/or PA interventions in cancer survivors, and explored the implementation and effectiveness of these interventions for increasing PA. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of English articles published January 2005–March 13, 2017 using the electronic databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed Medline (National Library of Medicine). Studies in adult cancer survivors that had a controlled or uncontrolled experimental design, included face-to-face exercise, had a group-based component, and reported PA pre- and post-intervention were included. Self-reported PA effect sizes were estimated for pre- to post-intervention, separately for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus none. Results: Twenty-three studies were reviewed, 34.8% (n = 8) included ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy (M = 1.6 ± 0.7, range = 1–3). Most interventions were delivered in a healthcare or rehabilitation setting by an exercise professional, and face-to-face exercise dose ranged from 72.0–6000.0 min. PA effect size ranged from 0.3–1.2 for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus 0.4–2.4 for those with none. Studies reviewed lacked detailed examples of group dynamics strategies, and none measured group cohesion. Conclusions: The additional benefit of group dynamics–based interventions for increasing PA in cancer survivors remains unclear. More research is needed to enhance the generalizability of face-to-face exercise interventions, and determine how to maximize the potential of including group dynamics strategies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1601-1612
Number of pages12
JournalSupportive Care in Cancer
Volume27
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

Survivors
Exercise
Neoplasms
National Library of Medicine (U.S.)
Exercise Therapy
Group Processes
PubMed
Research Design
Databases
Delivery of Health Care
Research

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oncology

Cite this

@article{219c0704dcfd40e7b3e3b6edbead9b97,
title = "Group-based exercise interventions for increasing physical activity in cancer survivors: a systematic review of face-to-face randomized and non-randomized trials",
abstract = "Purpose: To increase physical activity (PA), interventions based on group dynamics may be superior to interventions that target aggregates of people but do not have formal strategies to enhance cohesion. This review examined the extent to which group dynamics processes have been integrated within exercise and/or PA interventions in cancer survivors, and explored the implementation and effectiveness of these interventions for increasing PA. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of English articles published January 2005–March 13, 2017 using the electronic databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed Medline (National Library of Medicine). Studies in adult cancer survivors that had a controlled or uncontrolled experimental design, included face-to-face exercise, had a group-based component, and reported PA pre- and post-intervention were included. Self-reported PA effect sizes were estimated for pre- to post-intervention, separately for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus none. Results: Twenty-three studies were reviewed, 34.8{\%} (n = 8) included ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy (M = 1.6 ± 0.7, range = 1–3). Most interventions were delivered in a healthcare or rehabilitation setting by an exercise professional, and face-to-face exercise dose ranged from 72.0–6000.0 min. PA effect size ranged from 0.3–1.2 for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus 0.4–2.4 for those with none. Studies reviewed lacked detailed examples of group dynamics strategies, and none measured group cohesion. Conclusions: The additional benefit of group dynamics–based interventions for increasing PA in cancer survivors remains unclear. More research is needed to enhance the generalizability of face-to-face exercise interventions, and determine how to maximize the potential of including group dynamics strategies.",
author = "Leach, {Heather J.} and Mama, {Scherezade Kelly} and Harden, {Samantha M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00520-019-04670-y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "1601--1612",
journal = "Supportive Care in Cancer",
issn = "0941-4355",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "5",

}

Group-based exercise interventions for increasing physical activity in cancer survivors : a systematic review of face-to-face randomized and non-randomized trials. / Leach, Heather J.; Mama, Scherezade Kelly; Harden, Samantha M.

In: Supportive Care in Cancer, Vol. 27, No. 5, 01.05.2019, p. 1601-1612.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Group-based exercise interventions for increasing physical activity in cancer survivors

T2 - a systematic review of face-to-face randomized and non-randomized trials

AU - Leach, Heather J.

AU - Mama, Scherezade Kelly

AU - Harden, Samantha M.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Purpose: To increase physical activity (PA), interventions based on group dynamics may be superior to interventions that target aggregates of people but do not have formal strategies to enhance cohesion. This review examined the extent to which group dynamics processes have been integrated within exercise and/or PA interventions in cancer survivors, and explored the implementation and effectiveness of these interventions for increasing PA. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of English articles published January 2005–March 13, 2017 using the electronic databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed Medline (National Library of Medicine). Studies in adult cancer survivors that had a controlled or uncontrolled experimental design, included face-to-face exercise, had a group-based component, and reported PA pre- and post-intervention were included. Self-reported PA effect sizes were estimated for pre- to post-intervention, separately for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus none. Results: Twenty-three studies were reviewed, 34.8% (n = 8) included ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy (M = 1.6 ± 0.7, range = 1–3). Most interventions were delivered in a healthcare or rehabilitation setting by an exercise professional, and face-to-face exercise dose ranged from 72.0–6000.0 min. PA effect size ranged from 0.3–1.2 for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus 0.4–2.4 for those with none. Studies reviewed lacked detailed examples of group dynamics strategies, and none measured group cohesion. Conclusions: The additional benefit of group dynamics–based interventions for increasing PA in cancer survivors remains unclear. More research is needed to enhance the generalizability of face-to-face exercise interventions, and determine how to maximize the potential of including group dynamics strategies.

AB - Purpose: To increase physical activity (PA), interventions based on group dynamics may be superior to interventions that target aggregates of people but do not have formal strategies to enhance cohesion. This review examined the extent to which group dynamics processes have been integrated within exercise and/or PA interventions in cancer survivors, and explored the implementation and effectiveness of these interventions for increasing PA. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of English articles published January 2005–March 13, 2017 using the electronic databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed Medline (National Library of Medicine). Studies in adult cancer survivors that had a controlled or uncontrolled experimental design, included face-to-face exercise, had a group-based component, and reported PA pre- and post-intervention were included. Self-reported PA effect sizes were estimated for pre- to post-intervention, separately for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus none. Results: Twenty-three studies were reviewed, 34.8% (n = 8) included ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy (M = 1.6 ± 0.7, range = 1–3). Most interventions were delivered in a healthcare or rehabilitation setting by an exercise professional, and face-to-face exercise dose ranged from 72.0–6000.0 min. PA effect size ranged from 0.3–1.2 for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus 0.4–2.4 for those with none. Studies reviewed lacked detailed examples of group dynamics strategies, and none measured group cohesion. Conclusions: The additional benefit of group dynamics–based interventions for increasing PA in cancer survivors remains unclear. More research is needed to enhance the generalizability of face-to-face exercise interventions, and determine how to maximize the potential of including group dynamics strategies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061312699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061312699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00520-019-04670-y

DO - 10.1007/s00520-019-04670-y

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30739169

AN - SCOPUS:85061312699

VL - 27

SP - 1601

EP - 1612

JO - Supportive Care in Cancer

JF - Supportive Care in Cancer

SN - 0941-4355

IS - 5

ER -