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

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Liibrary 2013, Issue 9. Despite good evidence for the health benefits of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer, understanding how to promote sustainable exercise behaviour change in sedentary cancer survivors, particularly over the long term, is not as well understood. A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet current exercise recommendations. Hence, reviewing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important for understanding the most effective strategies to ensure benefit in the patient population and identify research gaps. Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions designed to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following secondary questions: Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance? 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 and/or healthcare professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour? What theoretical basis is most often associated with better behavioural outcomes? What behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions? Search methods: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We updated our 2013 Cochrane systematic review by updating the searches of the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, PsycLIT/PsycINFO, SportDiscus and PEDro up to May 2018. We also searched the grey literature, trial registries, wrote to leading experts in the field and searched reference lists of included studies and other related recent systematic reviews. Selection criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention with usual care or 'waiting list' control in sedentary people over the age of 18 with a homogenous primary cancer diagnosis. Data collection and analysis: In the update, review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify studies that might meet the inclusion criteria, or that could not be safely excluded without assessment of the full text (e.g. when no abstract is available). We extracted data from all eligible papers with at least two members of the author team working independently (RT, LS and RG). We coded BCTs according to the CALO-RE taxonomy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When possible, and if appropriate, we performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis of study outcomes. If statistical heterogeneity was noted, a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness), we extracted the final value, the standard deviation (SD) of the outcome of interest and the number of participants assessed at follow-up in each treatment arm, to estimate the 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 narratively synthesised studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach with the GRADE profiler. Main results: We included 23 studies in this review, involving a total of 1372 participants (an addition of 10 studies, 724 participants from the original review); 227 full texts were screened in the update and 377 full texts were screened in the original review leaving 35 publications from a total of 23 unique studies included in the review. We planned to include all cancers, but only studies involving breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies incorporated a target level of exercise that could meet current recommendations for moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (i.e.150 minutes per week); or resistance exercise (i.e. strength training exercises at least two days per week). Adherence to exercise interventions, which is crucial for understanding treatment dose, is still reported inconsistently. Eight studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an exercise prescription that met current guidelines. These studies all included a component of supervision: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 1 trials'. Six studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an aerobic exercise goal that was less than the current guideline recommendations: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 2 trials.' A hierarchy of BCTs was developed for Tier 1 and Tier 2 trials, with programme goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour being amongst the most frequent BCTs. Despite the uncertainty surrounding adherence in some of the included studies, interventions resulted in improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at eight to 12 weeks (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70; 604 participants, 10 studies; low-quality evidence) versus usual care. At six months, aerobic exercise tolerance was also improved (SMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.72; 591 participants; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions: Since the last version of this review, none of the new relevant studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions. We have found some improved understanding of how to encourage previously inactive cancer survivors to achieve international physical activity guidelines. Goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour, feature in interventions that meet recommendations targets and report adherence of 75% or more. However, long-term follow-up data are still limited, and the majority of studies are in white women with breast cancer. There are still a considerable number of published studies with numerous and varied issues related to high risk of bias and poor reporting standards. Additionally, the meta-analyses were often graded as consisting of low- to very low-certainty evidence. A very small number of serious adverse effects were reported amongst the studies, providing reassurance exercise is safe for this population. © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration

The OPERA trial : a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial of an exercise intervention for older people in residential and nursing accommodation

Background: The OPERA trial is large cluster randomised trial testing a physical activity intervention to address depression amongst people living in nursing and residential homes for older people. A process evaluation was commissioned alongside the trial and we report the protocol for this process evaluation. Challenges included the cognitive and physical ability of the participants, the need to respect the privacy of all home residents, including study non-participants, and the physical structure of the homes. Evaluation activity had to be organised around the structured timetable of homes, leaving limited opportunities for data collection. The aims of this process evaluation are to provide findings that will assist in the interpretation of the clinical trial results, and to inform potential implementation of the physical activity intervention on a wider scale. Methods/design: Quantitative data on recruitment of homes and individuals is being collected. For homes in the intervention arm, data on dose and fidelity of the intervention delivered; including individual rates of participation in exercise classes are collected. In the control homes, uptake and delivery of depression awareness training is monitored. These data will be combined with qualitative data from an in-depth study of a purposive sample of eight homes (six intervention and two control). Discussion: Although process evaluations are increasingly funded alongside trials, it is still rare to see the findings published, and even rarer to see the protocol for such an evaluation published. Process evaluations have the potential to assist in interpreting and understanding trial results as well as informing future roll-outs of interventions. If such evaluations are funded they should also be reported and reviewed in a similar way to the trial outcome evaluation

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials : a consensus study

Background: Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews. Method: We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, and the process was repeated. Results: The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for subgroups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based apriori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented. Conclusions: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies

How Online Communities of People With Long-Term Conditions Function and Evolve: Network Analysis of the Structure and Dynamics of the Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Online Communities.

BACKGROUND: Self-management support can improve health and reduce health care utilization by people with long-term conditions. Online communities for people with long-term conditions have the potential to influence health, usage of health care resources, and facilitate illness self-management. Only recently, however, has evidence been reported on how such communities function and evolve, and how they support self-management of long-term conditions in practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying online self-management support systems by analyzing the structure and dynamics of the networks connecting users who write posts over time. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal network analysis of anonymized data from 2 patients' online communities from the United Kingdom: the Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation (BLF) communities in 2006-2016 and 2012-2016, respectively. RESULTS: The number of users and activity grew steadily over time, reaching 3345 users and 32,780 posts in the Asthma UK community, and 19,837 users and 875,151 posts in the BLF community. People who wrote posts in the Asthma UK forum tended to write at an interval of 1-20 days and six months, while those in the BLF community wrote at an interval of two days. In both communities, most pairs of users could reach one another either directly or indirectly through other users. Those who wrote a disproportionally large number of posts (the superusers) represented 1% of the overall population of both Asthma UK and BLF communities and accounted for 32% and 49% of the posts, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the removal of superusers would cause the communities to collapse. Thus, interactions were held together by very few superusers, who posted frequently and regularly, 65% of them at least every 1.7 days in the BLF community and 70% every 3.1 days in the Asthma UK community. Their posting activity indirectly facilitated tie formation between other users. Superusers were a constantly available resource, with a mean of 80 and 20 superusers active at any one time in the BLF and Asthma UK communities, respectively. Over time, the more active users became, the more likely they were to reply to other users' posts rather than to write new ones, shifting from a help-seeking to a help-giving role. This might suggest that superusers were more likely to provide than to seek advice. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we uncover key structural properties related to the way users interact and sustain online health communities. Superusers' engagement plays a fundamental sustaining role and deserves research attention. Further studies are needed to explore network determinants of the effectiveness of online engagement concerning health-related outcomes. In resource-constrained health care systems, scaling up online communities may offer a potentially accessible, wide-reaching and cost-effective intervention facilitating greater levels of self-management

The lay health worker-patient relationship in promoting pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in COPD: What makes it work?

Lay health workers (LHWs) can improve access to services and adherence to treatment, as well as promoting self-care and prevention. Their effect in promoting uptake and adherence in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been tested. PR is the most effective treatment for the symptoms and disability of COPD, but this effectiveness is undermined by poor rates of completion. Trained LHWs with COPD, who also have first-hand experience of PR, are well placed to help overcome the documented barriers to its completion. The relationship between LHWs and patients may be one of the keys to their effectiveness but it has been little explored. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were used with the aim of examining the LHW-patient partnership in a feasibility study of trained PR-experienced LHWs used to support COPD patients referred to PR. Twelve volunteers with COPD who completed LHW training supported 66 patients referred for PR. All 12 of these LHWs gave end-of-study interviews, 21 COPD patients supported by LHWs were also interviewed. Patients reported that the LHWs were keen to share their experiences of PR, and that this had a positive impact. The enthusiasm of the LHWs for PR was striking. The common bond between LHWs and patients of having COPD together with the LHWs positive, first-hand experience of PR were dominant and recurring themes in their relationship.This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG0214-30052). SL receives additional funding from the South African Medical Research Council. SJCT was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames at Bart’s Health NHS Trust

Whole home exercise intervention for depression in older care home residents (the OPERA study) : a process evaluation

Background: The ‘Older People’s Exercise intervention in Residential and nursing Accommodation’ (OPERA) cluster randomised trial evaluated the impact of training for care home staff together with twice-weekly, physiotherapist-led exercise classes on depressive symptoms in care home residents, but found no effect. We report a process evaluation exploring potential explanations for the lack of effect. Methods: The OPERA trial included over 1,000 residents in 78 care homes in the UK. We used a mixed methods approach including quantitative data collected from all homes. In eight case study homes, we carried out repeated periods of observation and interviews with residents, care staff and managers. At the end of the intervention, we held focus groups with OPERA research staff. We reported our first findings before the trial outcome was known. Results: Homes showed large variations in activity at baseline and throughout the trial. Overall attendance rate at the group exercise sessions was low (50%). We considered two issues that might explain the negative outcome: whether the intervention changed the culture of the homes, and whether the residents engaged with the intervention. We found low levels of staff training, few home champions for the intervention and a culture that prioritised protecting residents from harm over encouraging activity. The trial team delivered 3,191 exercise groups but only 36% of participants attended at least 1 group per week and depressed residents attended significantly fewer groups than those who were not depressed. Residents were very frail and therefore most groups only included seated exercises. Conclusions: The intervention did not change the culture of the homes and, in the case study homes, activity levels did not change outside the exercise groups. Residents did not engage in the exercise groups at a sufficient level, and this was particularly true for those with depressive symptoms at baseline. The physical and mental frailty of care home residents may make it impossible to deliver a sufficiently intense exercise intervention to impact on depressive symptoms

Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited

Health psychology interventions to improve adherence to maintenance therapies in asthma

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: Main objectives To determine the effectiveness of theory-based and non-theory based health psychology interventions for improving adherence to maintenance therapy in adults with asthma Secondary objectives To compare the effectiveness of adherence interventions which are based on theory, as defined by the Theory Coding Scheme (TCS), to interventions which are not theory-based To identify and describe, using the TSC and Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF), the different health psychology theories which have been used in interventions to improve adherence to maintenance therapy in adults with asthma To evaluate the extent to which health psychology theory has been applied to the development of adherence interventions in asthm

Reducing Opioid Use for Chronic Pain With a Group-Based Intervention: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Opioid use for chronic nonmalignant pain can be harmful. OBJECTIVE: To test whether a multicomponent, group-based, self-management intervention reduced opioid use and improved pain-related disability compared with usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicentered, randomized clinical trial of 608 adults taking strong opioids (buprenorphine, dipipanone, morphine, diamorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, papaveretum, pentazocine, pethidine, tapentadol, and tramadol) to treat chronic nonmalignant pain. The study was conducted in 191 primary care centers in England between May 17, 2017, and January 30, 2019. Final follow-up occurred March 18, 2020. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized 1:1 to either usual care or 3-day-long group sessions that emphasized skill-based learning and education, supplemented by 1-on-1 support delivered by a nurse and lay person for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 2 primary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form 8a (PROMIS-PI-SF-8a) score (T-score range, 40.7-77; 77 indicates worst pain interference; minimal clinically important difference, 3.5) and the proportion of participants who discontinued opioids at 12 months, measured by self-report. RESULTS: Of 608 participants randomized (mean age, 61 years; 362 female [60%]; median daily morphine equivalent dose, 46 mg [IQR, 25 to 79]), 440 (72%) completed 12-month follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in PROMIS-PI-SF-8a scores between the 2 groups at 12-month follow-up (-4.1 in the intervention and -3.17 in the usual care groups; between-group difference: mean difference, -0.52 [95% CI, -1.94 to 0.89]; P = .15). At 12 months, opioid discontinuation occurred in 65 of 225 participants (29%) in the intervention group and 15 of 208 participants (7%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 5.55 [95% CI, 2.80 to 10.99]; absolute difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 14.8% to 28.6%]; P < .001). Serious adverse events occurred in 8% (25/305) of the participants in the intervention group and 5% (16/303) of the participants in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (2% in the intervention group and 0% in the usual care group) and locomotor/musculoskeletal (2% in the intervention group and 1% in the usual care group). Four people (1%) in the intervention group received additional medical care for possible or probable symptoms of opioid withdrawal (shortness of breath, hot flushes, fever and pain, small intestinal bleed, and an overdose suicide attempt). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In people with chronic pain due to nonmalignant causes, compared with usual care, a group-based educational intervention that included group and individual support and skill-based learning significantly reduced patient-reported use of opioids, but had no effect on perceived pain interference with daily life activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN49470934